Sitting of 12 July 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time upon Monday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Trade Union Act, 1871 (Section 12)
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Labour whether he will request the Chief Registrar to make a special report with regard to his responsibilities under Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, in so far as they relate to trades union voting papers and other documents.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): The Chief Registrar is already required to report annually on his work under the Act and when appropriate his annual report refers to matters arising under Section 12.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend agree that rank and file trade unionists are entitled as of right to have trade union business, including elections, conducted honestly and properly, and that the only external check against possible fraud by trade union officials is the right of the Chief Registrar to prosecute under Section 12? Will he bear in mind that in 1958 the Chief Registrar reported that his duties in this respect were impeded by the refusal of certain trade unions to provide him with the relevant documents and other necessary evidence? Will he bear in mind the national importance of this subject and, in view of the great public anxiety in this matter, will he take the necessary steps to ensure that the rights of the rank and file trade unionists may be better protected?
    Mr. Hare: I am advised that the powers under Section 12 are designed to protect the property of the unions and would not be appropriate for the sort of situation which my hon. Friend has in mind. In answer to his general point, I am studying the recent judgment in this case, together with all other factors, and, obviously, I have no more to say about it at the moment.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the ninety years which have elapsed since the 1871 Act, the clean decency of the British trade union movement has commended itself to the whole world and that now that there has been a smear inflicted on it by a totally unrepresentative clique of people—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is difficulty about this. I am not certain what the "smear" is, but this judgment is the subject matter of an appeal.
    Mr. Lee: I was merely following what the Minister was saying. I was about to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that we on this side of the House are always extremely concerned at these matters; that we shall do our very best to ensure that the public responsibilities of the unions are met; and that the best way to do that is to allow the T.U.C. to go on with its work.
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that we have to look at this matter calmly and in its true perspective. We do not want to take one incident as being typical. This matter has caused a great deal of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to the country, and we have to give it serious consideration.
    Mr. Marshasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the judgment given in the case of Byrne and Chapple v. Foulkes and Haxell, how many breaches of Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, insofar as they relate to trade unions voting papers, have been reported by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in the past ten years.
    Mr. Hare: The Chief Registrar has made no reports on this subject. The purpose of Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, is, of course, to protect the property of a trade union. I said this earlier in answer to a supplementary

    363
    question. This was not an issue in this case.
    Mr. Marsh: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be extremely unfortunate if this unique and isolated incident were used as a basis to mount an ill-informed attack on the trade union movement in general? Will he take steps, by a public announcement, to make clear to the country at large that this is isolated and highly unusual?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think that anyone is making attacks on the trade unions. All I have said is that these are serious matters. Both sides of the House share concern about them. We have to examine the whole problem, not in the light of this one incident, but in the context of the position as a whole.

    Newcast Foundries Limited, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour for how long his Department has been trying to find suitable workers to fill vacancies at Newcast Foundries Limited, of Newcastle-under-Lyme; and after what period of time he will be prepared to consider an application for labour permits for foreign workers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): There are at present sixteen unfilled vacancies with this firm which were notified to the employment exchange on 18th May. We are now prepared to consider an application from the firm to employ suitably qualified foreign workers.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary very much for the good work he has achieved so rapidly in adopting a more reasonable attitude to these applications, may I ask if he will comment on the fact that so much difficulty is being found by his Department, in view of the unemployment that exists, in trying to meet the demands from this firm for workers in the foundries?
    Mr. Green: Naturally, we seek to fill vacancies wherever possible locally. The vacancies are circulated in addition, of course, to other employment exchanges but there is difficulty in filling these places as there is a shortage of lodging
    364
    accommodation, as I expect the hon. Member quite understands. It takes perhaps a fortnight to establish the fact that there are no home citizens available to fill these jobs. It seldom, if ever, takes more than a month, and, as soon as that has been established, we consider applications to employ foreign labour.

    Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour for the latest date for which figures are available, how many unemployed persons and how many unfilled vacancies there were in Newcastle-under-Lyme; how many of the persons unemployed were disabled; how many of the vacancies available were in foundries; and what difficulties were being encountered in trying to fill them.
    Mr. Green: On 12th June, 1961, there were 302 males and 140 females registered as unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme, of whom 85 males and 23 females were disabled persons.
    Unfilled vacancies on 5th July, 1961, were 563 for males and 192 for females, of which 22 for males were in foundries. There are very few foundry workers registered as unemployed and vacancies, particularly for skilled workers, are not easy to fill.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for those figures, may I ask if he has noted the fact that there still remains a residue of registered disabled workers in Newcastle-under-Lyme who for a long period have been unable to find work? Will he endeavour to use the good offices of his Department to try to bring to Newcastle-under-Lyme some special form of employment that would enable these disabled workers to have a future?
    Mr. Green: I should like to assure the hon. Member, as I think he knows, that this is a matter very close to the heart of the Department. I believe it is also true and fair to say that employers generally try to fulfil their obligations and duties towards these disabled workers. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to know that there are twenty-six people in this area who are in section 2 of the Disabled Register for whom only sheltered employment is possible or suitable.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the percentage of boys and girls who having been recorded as apprentices in his Department's apprentice statistics subsequently have their apprenticeships terminated.
    Mr. Hare: I am afraid that the information is not available.
    Mr. Boyden: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the error in the figures given by youth employment officers to his Department when they made up the original figure? Is is not based on the report by boys and girls who go to the youth employment officer because they think they have apprenticeships offered to them and in fact have not?
    Mr. Hare: I believe that the figures are pretty accurate. I think that the hon. Member knows how difficult it is to achieve supreme accuracy in this matter. Our figures show that where wastage is due to premature terminations, this is more than offset by late entrants to apprenticeship. I think that, broadly speaking, we can rely on these figures.
    Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister agree that three years ago the Carr Committee recommended that he should have far more complete statistics of the number of people in apprenticeship training and so on? What is he doing to carry out that recommendation?
    Mr. Hare: The main task of the Youth Employment Service is to get on with the job of advising young people in finding jobs and apprenticeships. If we put on the Service this heavy demand for extra statistics, the officers would be taken away from the crucial job of work which they have to do at the moment.

    Street Newsvendors
    Mr. Goughasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to include street newsvendors within the wages and holiday provisions laid down by the Retail Newsagency, Tobacco and Confectionery Wages Council and if he proposes to amend Statutory Instrument, 1960/1 (R.N.T. (26)) accordingly.
    Mr. Green: Minimum remuneration for street newsvendors has been provided ever since the Council was set up but these workers are not covered by any holiday provisions. My right hon. Friend has no power either to amend the relevant Order without proposals from the Council, or to require the Council to make particular proposals.
    Mr. Gough: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is only because of the method by which these men are paid that they appear to be self-employed, but that in fact they are actually employed by the big newspapers? Would he, therefore, agree that they are entitled to holidays with pay and other benefits? Will he look into the matter further?
    Mr. Green: As my hon. Friend knows—and I agree with him—there are two types of person involved in this form of occupation. I think it a fact that one street newsvendor raised the question of holidays with the Council when it published its first proposals in 1949. The Council did not feel able to prescribe holidays with pay at that time. Since then no further representations have been received from these people, but, if my hon. Friend has further representations to make, I shall be glad to receive them.

    Shipyard, Birkenhead (Demarcation Dispute)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Labour what action he is now taking to end the inter-union demarcation dispute at Cammell Laird's shipbuilding yard at Birkenhead.
    Mr. Hare: The General Council of the Trades Union Congress arranged a meeting of the two unions concerned in this dispute on 6th July. They agreed to seek clarification of an earlier arbitration award dealing with work claimed by each of them. I have arranged for the arbitrator to hear representatives of the unions on Friday next.
    Mr. Pannell: Whilst welcoming that statement, may I ask if my right hon. Friend does not agree that these continued disputes are completely destroying confidence in the British shipbuilding industry? Does he not consider that there is a duty on his Department to take

    367
    positive steps to prevent their recurrence instead of intervening at a late stage when the damage has already been done?
    Mr. Hare: I agree with my hon. Friend about the very serious effects which these disputes have. I think that they do great damage to the industry as a whole, as well as, of course, to the individual men who work in the industry. I should point out that there is a demarcation procedure agreement which has been agreed by the unions. I hope that they can make more use of it. As a result of the meeting on 6th July, a member of the General Council of the T.U.C. is to act as chairman of a meeting between the executives of the two unions. The object is to go over the whole question of the relationship of these unions and the operation of the procedure agreement dealing with demarcation issues. No date has been fixed for the meeting, but I hope that useful results will flow from it.
    Mr. G. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise—surprising though it may seem to him—how relieved we on this side of the House are to see him back again and how glad we are that we could prevent his stand-in from doing any damage while he was away?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to discover how that arises from the Answer.

    Laboratories, Technical Colleges and University Departments (Safety)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour what action is taken by the Factory Inspectorate, and on what basis, to ensure safe conditions in the laboratories of technical colleges and university departments; and whether he will take steps to extend the scope of the Factory Inspectorate in this respect.
    Mr. Hare: The closest contact is maintained between my inspectors and Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in advising local education authorities and technical colleges on these questions. The Factory Inspectorate is also helping to prepare a code of practice for protection against radiation hazards in research establishments.
    Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister agree with me that that Answer is not
    368
    completely satisfactory? As long ago as 1949 the Gowers Report suggested that legislation should be framed to cover students in colleges of this kind. Does he not recall that we discussed the matter in Committee on the Factories Bill some two or three years ago? Will he not accede to the second half of my Question and promise to bring in legislation to cover these students?
    Mr. Hare: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member. My information is that the present arrangements are working satisfactorily. My advice is available and is readily sought in both colleges and universities. Unless the hon. Member has information which I do not possess, I do not think that he is justified in asking for legislation.
    Dr. Stross: On a point of order. In view of the fact that I am not content with that answer, I shall ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment on the first possible occasion.

    School Leavers, Central West Fife
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers there will be in Central West Fife at the end of the current school year; and how many vacancies exist for them now at the local employment exchanges.
    Mr. Green: About 335 boys and 350 girls. On 5th July there were at the local Youth Employment Offices 59 notified vacancies for boys, plus an unspecified number of vacancies with the National Coal Board, and 81 for girls.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister recognise that this reveals a deplorable situation in which the prospects for boys and girls in this area are certainly worse than the average of the United Kingdom and worse than for Scotland as a whole? Can he give any hope that there will be some amelioration of the situation very soon? Does he recognise that boys and girls in their tender adolescent years are having to leave these areas for the Midlands and the South and that parents are desperately anxious that the Government should do something about it?
    Mr. Green: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern and I am sure that

    369
    he realises that he is not the only one to have that concern. It might be some comfort to him to know that, despite the figures which have been given, all but five of the 561 Easter school leavers were working by mid-May. It is therefore possible to misinterpret the figures which I have just given. If one looks back on the recent history, one finds that practically all the school leavers found employment in the area. But I realise his anxiety, all the same. Perhaps he would like to know that the National Coal Board, for example, the Royal Naval Dockyard and the Central Electricity Board, and so on, are all arranging to increase their intake of young people.
    Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that all hon. Members are not only concerned about whether these young people obtain employment. We are very much concerned about the kind of employment which they obtain. The graph shows that there is nothing like sufficient of them obtaining skilled work or work which requires technical training of any type.
    Mr. Green: I appreciate the general problem of the area and we are doing our best about it. It is, of course, true that if some travel to work can be accepted the prospects of a range of employment, as well as mere employment, are very much wider.

    Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Countries and Colonial Territories)
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of his speech at the International Labour Conference in Geneva, when he spoke of the acute shortage of men with ability and experience in labour affairs, with special regard to developing countries, he will consider inviting more trade unionists from the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to this country to study British labour relations under the auspices of his Department.
    Mr. Hare: I have made places available on industrial relations courses for trade unionists from Commonwealth countries and Colonial Territories in Africa. I am shortly expecting nominations from them for the next course which will be held in the autumn.
    Mr. Boardman: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to continue to bear in mind that in these developing countries labour relations are of the utmost importance and that it would be a great tragedy if the enormous potential of the Federation were to be undermined through inexperienced trade union leaders?
    Mr. Hare: I very much agree with the hon. Member. That was the burden of the speech which I made in Geneva to which he referred.

    Industrial Accidents
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Minister of Labour what special efforts he proposes to arrest the rapidy increasing number of industrial accidents, particularly among young people.
    Mr. Hare: I am considering with representatives of employers and trades unions what more can be done to promote safe methods of work and in particular to give young people sound safety training.
    Mr. Boardman: In view of the fact that the accident rate is increasing, despite reasonable precautions being taken, does the Minister agree that the extensive use of cinema films in works canteens showing the dangers in modern industry is probably the best way of getting this across at any rate to the younger people in industry?
    Mr. Hare: That is a useful suggestion which I will certainly consider. It is not only a question of doing this when the young person has arrived in the factory and taken up his job. More can be done in schools and colleges, and here my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education intends to help to do more than is already being done. But I still think—and the hon. Member's idea is a contribution to it—that the main work is for all of us to preach the need for promoting safety-mindedness in industry. Individually we can all make contributions.

    School Leavers (Apprenticeships)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement on the prospects for those leaving school this summer so far as apprenticeships and other training opportunities are concerned; and

    371
    whether there is any prospect of an increase in training facilities commensurate with the large increase in school leavers.
    Mr. Hare: Preliminary reports covering the first few months of this year—and I must emphasise their provisional nature—which I have received from the Youth Employment Service indicate that the number of apprenticeships and learnerships is keeping pace with the substantial increase in the number of school leavers starting work.
    Mr. Prentice: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he will make a further statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess bearing in mind that we shall rise about the time that a great number of these school leavers will be leaving school? Will he bear in mind the great anxiety on both sides of the House about this, particularly in such areas as Scotland and the North-East Coast, where local unemployment is likely to aggravate the problem and to prevent training places from being found for these young people?
    Mr. Hare: I emphasised in my Answer the preliminary nature of these reports. I do not want to mislead the House, but frankly I am relieved that the reports which I am receiving from every region of the country are far more satisfactory than perhaps some of the critics thought they would be.
    Miss Herbison: The Minister said that the reports which he is receiving from every region of the country are far more satisfactory than he expected. Does that apply to Scotland? In particular, does it apply to Lanarkshire, where unemployment is high, where the last pit closes tomorrow in one area and where many jobs are folding up this week-end?
    Mr. Hare: It does not apply to Lanarkshire, but it applies to Scotland as a whole. We have to be very careful. I do not want to mislead the House and I prefer to wait until I can give sound figures, but my general impression, which I thought the House would like, is that we are getting on with this job rather better than some people feared.
    Mr. R. Carr: In considering the figures from different areas, will the Minister
    372
    take a special look at what is being done in the Wakefield area to see whether that might provide a lesson as to how training opportunities can be improved in other areas within the existing framework?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend has already discussed this matter with me. The example set by the Wakefield area is one from which all of us could benefit.

    Factory Inspectorate (Strength)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour what is the present strength of the Factory Inspectorate, in both its general and specialised branches; and whether, in view of the increase in industrial accidents, he will make a substantial increase in the establishment to enable workplaces to be inspected more frequently.
    Mr. Hare: On 3rd July, 1961, in addition to the chief inspector and four deputy chief inspectors, 339 inspectors were employed in the general inspectorate and 71 in the specialist branches. I keep the establishment of the Factory Inspectorate under constant review and I shall certainly bear this factor in mind when I consider the forthcoming Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories.
    Mr. Prentice: Are there not a number of urgent reasons for increasing the establishment? Does the Minister agree that the increase in accidents is alarming and that the frequency of inspection is one aspect of the problem which is under his direct control? Does he agree that we are inspecting our industrial establishments far less frequently than the standards laid down by the I.L.O.? Does he also agree that the recent regulations issued by his Department have increased the burden on the inspectorate? For all those reasons, does he think that there is a chance that he will increase the establishment in the near future?
    Mr. Hare: I cannot make any promise about that. In 1960, of the 219,526 factories on our register, 100,518 were visited.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it not a fact that the I.L.O. recommendation some years ago, which was endorsed by this country, laid down a standard of one visit per year for every factory? The figures which the Minister has just given represent

    373
    about one visit every two years or even less.
    Mr. Hare: I note what the hon. Member said, but although we accepted the recommendation at the time, our binding obligations relate to the 1947 Convention and not to the recommendation.

    BUILDING OPERATIONS (ACCIDENTS)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to publish an analysis of the reasons for the increase of accidents in building operations during 1960.
    Mr. Hare: An analysis of these accident figures, with a commentary, will be published in the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories in September.
    Mr. Boyden: Would not it be more convenient if that Report were published now? Is not it a serious matter? Are not the Government concerned about the activities of the building industry? Are not excessive speculation and excessive profits one reason why there are accidents in the industry?
    Mr. Hare: I do not know about that. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have already expressed my great concern about the increase in accidents. It is because I want the matter to be considered thoroughly, and because I want to see that the work is not skimped, that a little extra time has been taken. The Report will be published in September.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Repair Yard, Evanton (Sale)
    Mr. C. Pannellasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in disposing of the establishment at Evanton, Ross-shire, he consulted the Minister of Labour about employment prospects in that area.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Before selling the Repair Yard at Evanton the Admiralty had consultations on the employment aspects with the Distribution of Industry Panel for Scotland, on which the Minis-
    374
    try of Labour is represented. We also consulted the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Pannell: Does not the Minister agree that in disposing of the site to someone who was just marginally the highest tenderer he reduced the employment prospects in the area, as it has been reported to me, by about 30 or 35? Is not this worth looking at?
    Mr. John MacLeod: Before the Minister replies, is it not rather surprising—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be later, but the Minister must have a chance to reply.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Two of the tenderers had expressed the intention to develop the site industrially, and the panel which looked into the matter knew of no reason to regard either as likely to give more or less employment than the other. I think that some of the facts given are perhaps incorrect. I have every reason to believe that the present purchaser will give as much employment locally as the other person might have done.
    Mr. MacLeod: Is it not rather surprising that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has not the graciousness to inform the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty—myself—that he intended to put this Question on the Order Paper and that at no time has he ever asked me personally for my support, although my interest in industrial development in the Highlands is well known? Further, is the Minister aware that I have had a letter from the purchaser stating that one large hangar is to be used by an industrialist, a group of workshop buildings has been acquired for development, one of the large buildings is being moved to Evanton to expand an existing business
    "and I have retained a further croup of buildings with floor space of about 18,000 sq. ft. for industry."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not allow block quotations from documents during Questions.
    Mr. MacLeod: I was pointing out that the hon. Member for Leeds, West must be pleased about this extra employment which is to be provided by this purchaser.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If that was not a question, I should not allow block quotations in a point of order.
    Mr. Pannell: In view of that attack upon me, may I make it clear that at no time have I been interested in the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod). As the Civil Lord knows, my concern has been in the interests of a constituent of mine, a tenderer who considered that he was disadvantaged. He was largely disadvantaged because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on behalf of one of his friends.
    Mr. MacLeod: Surely I am entitled to object most strongly to that and to ask the hon. Member to withdraw it, because what he said is not the case at all.
    Mr. Speaker: All implications are out of order at Question Time, and I require the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to withdraw that part of the expression which he used.
    Mr. Pannell: I find myself in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in knowing what you wish me to withdraw, because I was subjected to an attack from the other side of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Let me assist the hon. Member, and express the hope that we can get on with Questions. I do not quote his exact words, but he said something to the effect that some obstacle had been raised by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on behalf of one of his friends. It is that expression which I require him to withdraw.
    Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if I substitute the word "constituent" for the word "friend", would that meet your wishes?
    Mr. MacLeod: On a point of order. I strongly object even to that. There is no foundation for that.
    Mr. Speaker: I was considering whether that met the requirement. I think that it does.

    Disposal of Property and Plant (Procedure)
    Mr. C. Pannellasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent it is the practice of his Department to accept always the highest tender for properties
    376
    and plant to be disposed of; and to what extent he consults other Departments in order to safeguard the wider public interest.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty always sells at the highest price unless there are special reasons in the wider public interest for preferring some lower offer. Because of these wider interests the Admiralty invariably consults other Departments before disposal. Properties suitable for industrial use are considered by the Board of Trade—in the light of its statutory responsibilities under the Local Employment Act, 1960—in concert with the Ministry of Labour and any other interested Departments such as the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Pannell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no wider public interest was served on this occasion, only the question of price?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We believed that the employment probabilities of both competing tenderers were equal. The Board of Trade judged the same. Therefore, we took notice of the advantage of the taxpayers and accepted the highest offer.

    Frigates (Sale to Portugal)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what sum has been paid by the Government of Portugal for two Bay class frigates of the British Navy recently sold to that Government; and how much the refitting and modernising of these warships prior to sale cost.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The purchase price of ships sold to other navies is a confidential matter between Her Majesty's Government and the purchaser. The Answer to the second part of the Question is that these ships were to be refitted not by the Admiralty but by private negotiations between the purchaser and a British shipbuilding firm.
    Mr. Brockway: Perhaps the Civil Lord will tell me whether the purchase price took into account any restriction upon the use of the ships and whether the same restriction applied to these ships as applied to the provision of arms to Portugal. I hope that he can tell us that the ships are not to be used for

    377
    conveying troops to any of the Portuguese colonies or for any operation on the coasts of those colonies.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It has been made clear in many debates and Questions in the House that these ships were sold in order to replace over-age destroyers which were being scrapped and to allow Portugal to meet her N.A.T.O. obligations.

    Naval and Civil Establishments (Security)
    Commander Courtneyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what basic differences exist in the application of security regulations to Admiralty civil establishments and naval shore establishments, respectively; and whether he is satisfied that there is no weakness in the security system resulting from such differences.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There are no basic differences in the regulations applied to naval and civil establishments respectively.
    Commander Courtney: I thank the Civil Lord for that reply. I wonder if he can satisfy the House on two further points. First, is it correct that the captain in charge, Portland, before this particular incident recommended that Henry Houghton should not be employed in Her Majesty's dockyard? Secondly, in view of the serious breach of security in the Admiralty civil establishment, is it not odd that two naval officers have been named but not, as yet, any civilians?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: On the first point, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, it is undesirable to try to put a gloss or an explanation on the summary which has already been laid before the House. On the second point, two out of the three persons named were civilians at the time. One is a civilian. One was an ex-naval officer who had been a civilian for some time before his employment. It is true that the third was a serving naval officer at that time.

    Security (Romer Committee's Report)
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the allegation made in 1954 that Henry
    378
    Houghton was taking secret papers out of the Underwater Detection Establishment at Portland, as stated in paragraph 4 of the summary of the Romer Committee's findings, was true.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As I said on 5th July, I cannot elaborate on the summary of the Romer Committee's main findings which has been circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does the Civil Lord recollect telling me on 20th June that in fact Houghton never had any access to secret information? Must not that fact have been perfectly well known to his immediate superior, to whom this allegation was made? In that case, does it not render that person very much more culpable than if in fact Houghton had had such access, because in that case he might merely have been taking the stuff home to do a little homework? In those circumstances, can my hon. Friend say whether this junior official has been suspended from duty prior to the disciplinary action which no doubt it is intended to bring against him?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, all these three persons are the subject of disciplinary proceedings at the moment and it would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of those proceedings.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what disciplinary measures have been taken arising from the Report of the Romer Committee.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Lipton: In view of the scathing comments made by the Romer Committee, why is it taking the Admiralty so long to decide what it is to do? Is there any reason for the delay? Surely, all the facts are known by now—or I should hope so.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think it only right that people who have been accused should be given a proper opportunity to defend themselves, and make counter-statements. We are looking into the matter, and hope in due course to make a statement of our reply.
    Mr. Willis: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the words "due course"?

    379
    When does he expect to be able to make a statement?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I imagine, probably two or three weeks—something of that sort of period.

    Hospital, Gillingham (Equipment and Stores)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what happened to the medical equipment and stores at the Royal Naval Hospital, Gillingham, when it was vacated by the Royal Navy.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: In accordance with the normal practice when an establishment is closed down, all the equipment and stores were carefully surveyed. Serviceable medical equipment and stores were either transferred to other R.N. medical establishments or returned to R.N. storage depots for further use. Unserviceable equipment or stores, including small quantities of drugs whose limited life had expired were destroyed, or were dealt with as scrap. Fixed hospital fittings were handed over to the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that allegations were made by persons who were employed at the time of the hand-over of the hospital to the National Health Service that they had burned or otherwise disposed of drugs and medical equipment to the value of £7,000, and that the burning and destruction took no less than fourteen days? I accept that in a complete evacuation such as took place here much of the equipment which had been there for many years was useless, but will my hon. Friend ask for a stock list of what should have been transferred and compare it with the figure he subsequently received?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My information is that nothing serviceable was destroyed, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence to the contrary I will certainly consider it and look at the stock list position.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty at what date existing aircraft carriers will become obsolete; and what plans he has for their replacement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Our five operational carriers will all have a first-class
    380
    capability until at least the early 1970s. No decision has yet been taken about replacements, but we are studying the characteristics which they would need.
    Mr. Wall: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that it might be better, from the point of view both of defence and of cost, not to replace these vessels by aircraft carriers but to lay down missile submarines? Can my hon. Friend say when the Admiralty is likely to reach a decision on this matter?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should think that recent events in Kuwait showed how valuable an aircraft carrier is, not only to provide radar cover and control facilities—[Interruption.]—yes, the commando carrier has been reinforced by "Victorious", an aircraft carrier, and these carriers are absolutely invaluable in the present climate and difficulties in the world.
    Mr. Willis: Can the Civil Lord give an assurance that before the Admiralty comes to a decision on this, there will be a debate in this House, as very strong views are held on both sides as to whether or no we should persist in replacing these aircraft carriers?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Some time may elapse before we start on the programme. As I say, no decision has yet been taken about replacements. An aircraft carrier normally lasts twenty years, and if we do a major modernisation on it, it will last ten years after that. So we need not rush into a decision on this important matter.
    Mr. Willis: But the Civil Lord has not answered my question—
    Mr. Speaker: The Civil Lord cannot be asked about arrangements for business. He does not arrange business.
    Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Admiralty makes the decision, and all we ask is that it should not be made until after there has been a full debate in this House.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman can answer that.

    Assault Ship
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he expects the new assault ship to be laid down and to be launched.
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what progress is being made with the construction of the assault ship.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We hope to invite tenders by the end of this month, and we shall then need time to consider the response before an order is placed. It is too early to say when the ship will be laid down and launched.
    Mr. Wall: While accepting my hon. Friend's view that the Kuwait operations illustrate the success of the commando carrier concept, do they not also illustrate the fact that it is essential to have an assault ship capable of keeping up with the commando carrier and of landing both transport and armour? Will my hon. Friend press forward with the completion of this ship, and get on with the laying down of a second?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is important to get the tenders out first, then consider them, and then get the ship laid down before we consider a second.
    Mr. Willis: As the Admiralty has known that such a ship has been required for many years now, has it not been very dilatory, and should it not now try to get the ship completed as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Considerable improvements have been effected during the period. We have taken the best lessons of American and other practice and have built them in the design of this ship which, we think, will be the better for them.

    H.M.S. "Albion"
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps are being taken to expedite the conversion of H.M.S. "Albion" to the rôle of commando carrier.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Special steps were taken to fit H.M.S. "Albion" into the dockyard programme at Portsmouth. She will be completed as soon as possible consistent with incorporating in her the lessons learnt with H.M.S. "Bulwark".
    Mr. Willis: As recent events have shown the importance of these ships, can the Civil Lord say when this one is likely to be finished?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We would hope that she would become operational towards the end of next year.
    Sir J. Maitland: Is it intended that "Albion" and "Bulwark" will work together?
    Mr. G. Brown: It would be unfortunate if they worked against each other.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: They will operate concurrently, one east and one west of Suez. To maintain continuous availability east of Suez, the carrier west of the Canal will be refitting part of the time.

    Chief of Security
    Mr. Liptonasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the new chief of security in his Department will be appointed.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend hopes to make an announcement before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Lipton: In view of the urgent need for effective control of naval security, will the Civil Lord hasten the appointment of a competent person? Will he see that whoever is appointed is not just an ordinary civil servant or a "brass hat" on the verge of retirement, but someone who has some experience of security methods?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend is aware, as I am, of the need to have the best possible man for this very important job.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the Admiralty's security arrangements in view of the fact that yet another Admiralty official was arrested yesterday, according to the Press, and charged under the Official Secrets Act?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am not responsible for reports in the Press, but I can say that the report this morning that a security leakage involving top secret experimental work on nuclear-powered submarines is being investigated is completely untrue; and most of the statements in the rest of the article have no foundation.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss this. It is sub judice.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Civil Lord see that the person who is appointed is someone who has previous experience of security work?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That will be a major consideration.

    Admiralty Departments (Select Committee's Report)
    Mr. R. Carrasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what further steps have been taken to concentrate Admiralty departments at one site, in pursuance of Recommendation 6 of the First Report from the Select Committee on Estimates in Session 1959–60, in view of the recent decision to amalgamate sections of the Naval Accounts Departments at Bath.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As already announced, the Dockyards and Maintenance Department has already been concentrated on one site in Bath, and the Radio Division of the Weapons Department, at present in London, will join its parent department in Bath in mid-1962.
    The move of the Accounts Department to Bath in mid-1962 will leave two branches in London. The intention is to move them to Bath also as part of a long-term redeployment plan, but this will involve new building.
    The Admiralty is vacating Queen Anne's Mansions and its offices in Pinner next year, and concentrating approximately 1,900 staff in the new Empress State Building at Earls Court. This will achieve economies in common services and contribute to greater inter-departmental efficiency.
    Mr. Carr: Whilst expressing satisfaction with the progress that is being made with the first part of Recommendation No. 6, may I ask my hon. Friend whether equal progress has been made in the implementation of the second part of that recommendation.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The concentration of the whole of the Department in one place does mean that there is less call on the Director-General to have to travel. We in the Admiralty are trying to exercise economy in this respect, and
    384
    are trying to avoid calling the Director-General up from Bath unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

  BRITISH ARMY

    General Pina (Visit)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for War what was the subject of the recent negotiations in London between General Pina, chief of staff of the Portuguese army, and representatives of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I have nothing to add to my Answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on 27th June.
    Mr. Brockway: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) showed me that Answer. In that Answer, the Secretary of State stated that there were discussions about N.A.T.O. problems. Can the right hon. Gentleman solve a problem which is puzzling many of us: how will it be possible to provide Portugal with arms restricted to N.A.T.O. purposes and not to be used in Portugal's overseas territories? How is it possible?
    Mr. Profumo: If I may stick to the Question on the Order Paper, there were no discussions about arms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—there were no discussions about arms during this visit, and no inquiries were made of my Department then, nor have any been made since.
    Mr. Mayhew: Why not? Surely, this is precisely the moment to make some effort to see that these arms do not go to Angola.
    Mr. Profumo: I said that there was no discussion. General Pina, whose visit is the subject of this Question, did not enter into any discussions about arms, and there have been no inquiries of my Department about arms, either then or since.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the grave situation in Angola, and the feeling expressed in this House in last week's debate, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the position in Angola with General Pina, and ask him to take up the matter with his Government with a

    385
    view to Portugal desisting from the atrocities there?
    Mr. Profumo: Discussions of this sort are, and should remain, confidential.

    Land, Malta
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Secretary of State for War how much was paid for a plot of land known as Tal Basal at Delimara, Malta, which was purchased by the War Department in February, 1942, for use as a machine-gun post; to whom the land has been sold subsequently; what price was paid for it; and whether the former owners were given the opportunity of repurchasing.
    Mr. Profumo: This land, purchased from a private seller in 1942, was sold this year to Mr. Nicholas Scerri by open tender. It is contrary to Government practice to disclose the prices paid for land bought from a private seller or obtained for land if sold by tender. The former owners were given facilities to tender for its purchase, but were unsuccessful.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in cases such as this the person from whom the land was compulsorily acquired should be given an opportunity to buy it back and that these people were, in fact, prepared to pay a considerably larger sum than that which they received? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that in the future he will see that people are reasonably treated in these matters?
    Mr. Profumo: I would not say that my hon. Friend's constituents were not treated properly, because the land was bought freehold and was not requisitioned. At the same time, we gave the owners an opportunity to repurchase the land. There was no reservation of pre-emptive rights in the original sale, and my Department is, of course, bound to get the best value it can in the current market.

    19th Brigade Group (Exercise)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War why the exercise planned for the 19th Brigade Group in Portugal was cancelled; and what alternative exercise is planned.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for War what plans he now has for training exercises for the United Kingdom-based strategic reserve.
    Mr. Profumo: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in answer to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on 6th July, the commitments for our forces and aircraft elsewhere made it necessary to postpone the exercise planned for the 19th Brigade Group in Portugal. The battalion exercise in Canada to which I referred in my Estimates speech is going ahead as planned. The re-arrangement of other overseas exercises must be postponed until we know how long our commitments in the Persian Gulf will continue; but of course the present moves of part of the strategic reserve are in themselves excellent and realistic training.
    Mr. Strachey: But is not that the wrong reason for having done the right thing? Would it not be very much better if we agreed now that this whole proposal to have an exercise in Portugal was politically most undesirable?
    Mr. Profumo: If it was not politically undesirable when we last discussed it, I do not see what has made it so now.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the Secretary of State give a plain assurance that, while the present shocking situation continues in Angola, we shall have no military exercise of any kind in Portugal?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot give any such undertaking. Let us be realistic about this. I think that we must postpone this exercise for practical reasons for the time being, but I shall wish, if it is possible, to carry out an exercise of this sort at a future time because I believe that it will help our troops. That is the criterion by which we judge the matter.

    Kenya (Replacements)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War what replacements are being sent to Kenya to replace the forces sent to Kuwait.
    Mr. Profumo: Headquarters 19 Infantry Brigade Group, the 1st battalion the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, and certain administrative units.
    Mr. Strachey: How much is left in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Profumo: That is a wholly different question and it is not one which I think any hon. Member would expect me to answer, let alone the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Secretary of State for War; but if there is any suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's question that the cupboard is bare, I can assure him that this is far from the case.

    King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for War if he will carry out an investigation into the circumstances in which a horse from the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery, was beaten on the instructions of an officer, on Thursday evening, 22nd June, 1961; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Profumo: I share the concern which is, I know, widely felt about these distressing allegations. I caused an investigation to be made, and I have now been able to study the report which has been made to me.
    However, as the House will know, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is also holding an inquiry. I much welcome this, and have instructed that every assistance should be given the Society in it.
    This inquiry has not yet been concluded, and my hon. Friend will therefore understand that I do not wish to influence its course by making any statement yet about the report I have received.
    Mr. Burden: While accepting those remarks and thanking my right hon. Friend for them, may I also ask him to give an undertaking that he will issue notice to all units that employ horses that any brutality of any description against any horse owned by the War Office will not be tolerated, and that if any animal shows itself to be temperamentally unsuited to training, that animal will be disposed of and not ill-treated.
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to give such an undertaking.
    Mr. Manuel: Why?
    Mr. Profumo: I have explained to the House that I regard this matter as sub judice and that is the only reason why, at this stage, I am not publishing the report that was made to me. Perhaps sub judice is too strong an expression. I know that the House wants to have all the facts about this case. As an independent inquiry is being held by an organisation which, I am sure, is held in high esteem by all hon. Members, I do not propose to make public the report that was made to me. But I shall certainly wish to take an opportunity of expressing publicly the soldier's side of this distressing affair. So far we have heard only the accusations, but I am sure that even those who are most shocked will realise that there are two sides to this case.
    Mr. Burden: The request I was making has nothing to do with the present case but is designed to ensure that there is no possibility of any such happening in the future. It has no relation whatever to the case which my right hon. Friend has said is sub judice.
    Mr. Profumo: I appreciate my hon. Friend's view and I will look into the matter, but I am not persuaded that there is any need for such an instruction.

    Kuwait
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War what troops are now committed in Kuwait.
    Mr. Profumo: There are at this moment in Kuwait two Royal Marine Commandos and three battalions of infantry with tanks, armoured cars and guns in support. There are also, of course, detachments from all the administrative services.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Secretary of State say how the fulfilment of this commitment has affected the deployment of our troops in Aden, Kenya, Cyprus and at home?
    Mr. Profumo: That is a much wider question which I hope, particularly as the hon. Gentleman is talking about troops in general, he will put down to the Minister of Defence.
    Mr. John Hall: My right hon. Friend says that there are guns in Kuwait.

    389
    Would he say if there are any anti-tank guns there?
    Mr. Profumo: I would not like to be drawn into the individual details of all the weapons. As I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, there is a point beyond which one cannot go in giving individual information. This is a balanced force which has with it the arms and equipment which are necessary for the operations it was thought it might have to undertake.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was any part of the 19th Brigade Group, which was intended to undertake the exercises in Portugal, sent to Kuwait? If none of them are there, where are they?
    Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not fully understand an Answer that I gave earlier. If he will look at it he will see that part of the 19th Brigade Group is now in Kenya and has taken the place of troops who were moved from Kenya to Kuwait. Part of the 19th Brigade Group is still in this country.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the Secretary of State amplify statements which have been made today that certain of these units are now being withdrawn?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot amplify them, except to say that some units are being withdrawn and some will continue to be withdrawn as the commander-in-chief feels that the situation warrants. As these units are withdrawn we propose to make announcements of the names of the units.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us believe that the essential thing in the deployment of our forces is that we should have balanced formations wherever they happen to be. His news that only part of the 19th Brigade Group is now in Kenya is somewhat disturbing, if it is to be taken to mean that that formation has been split up with some component parts being employed independently.
    Mr. Profumo: I did not say that it was being employed independently. When we moved certain troops from Kenya to Kuwait it was felt right that we should increase the number of troops which were held as a local theatre reserve
    390
    in Kenya. This operation started to the extent that I have reported to the House, but, in view of the fact that things are more stable in Kuwait and it is even intended to withdraw some of the troops there, the rest of the movement operation of the 19th Brigade Group has for the time being stopped and, in due course, the one bit will join the other.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to relieve troops in Kuwait.
    Mr. Profumo: It is too early yet for me to be able to detail such arrangements.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am not asking about the withdrawal of troops, but the relief of them on a rotational basis, as mentioned by the Minister of Defence yesterday? In view of the extremely difficult conditions under which our troops are operating in Kuwait, what is the maximum amount of time it is proposed to leave any individual there in an exposed position before relief?
    Mr. Profumo: It is too early yet for the position to be precise, because during a period when there may still have to be some active operation the removal or rotation of troops must be on an ad hoc basis. As and when things settle down, we will be able to evolve plans, which are now being thought out, to do things on a proper basis. When things settle down it will be our intention not to leave these soldiers in Kuwait for more than a few months at a time.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While welcoming that statement, will my right hon. Friend also assure us that British forces will not be relieved or ousted by the United Nations?
    Mr. Profumo: That is a much wider question with which the Minister of Defence dealt yesterday.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he means when he says "when we settle down in Kuwait"? Is it not true that we are there because of a specific request by the Ruler of Kuwait, one man, and that whether we leave or not depends upon the veto of this gentleman?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that I said "when we settle down". If I did, I meant to say "when things settle down". My right hon. Friend made it plain yesterday that we are there at the request of the Ruler, and when the Ruler asks us to leave and says that he is happy, we shall be only too glad to leave, as my right hon. Friend said. There may be a period in between, which I think is the period that the hon. Gentleman had in mind, and during that period, if it exists, we shall try to rotate the troops.

GERMAN FORCES (TRAINING FACILITIES, UNITED KINGDOM)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
48. Mr. G. BROWN: To ask the Minister of Defence whether he will make a further statement about the provision of facilities for German forces in this country.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 48.
Yes, Sir. As the House knows, discussions have taken place with the Federal German Government about the provision of certain facilities for the storage of ammunition, oil and general stores in Service installations.
Arrangements are also being made for the reception in the autumn of a tank battalion at the Army's tank training range at Castlemartin. On the results of this trial, a decision will be made about the reception of further units.
The storage facilities and training range will remain under British control. The cost of providing these facilities will be met by the Federal German Government.
Before these arrangements are implemented, Parliament will be asked to approve a draft Order in Council under the Visiting Farces Act. The draft Order will be laid before the House today.
Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister aware that this is a statement of considerable gravity which the country, whatever the ordinary views of the people, will con-
392
sider rather soberly? Will he answer two or three questions? First, can he tell us for haw long the tank battalion may be expected to be here? Secondly, since there are tank-training facilities on the Continent and since the Germans, I understand, use American tanks and the Americans have a tank-training area in Bavaria, can he say why they were unable to use one of those facilities there?
Thirdly, since, at this moment, we have British troops going there, and if events had not overtaken us we would have had British troops going to Portugal and now we have German troops coming here, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the onus lies on him to prove an overwhelming case for this arrangement if the country is to be asked to accept it?
Mr. Watkinson: First, in response to the general tone of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, may I say that this is a very difficult position and one which many people will ponder greatly. I accept that. I have done so myself. To be fair to the Germans who are our allies in N.A.T.O., they, too, have thought about it seriously. I think that they have their fears and hesitations about this.
Before I answer the right hon. Gentleman's three specific questions, I should like to say that I have come to the view—and I think that all people who think about this matter seriously must do so—that if N.A.T.O. means anything to us, then all N.A.T.O. allies must try to work together, particularly against the darkening international scene.
To answer the three specific questions, the first battalion which is coming largely, as I have said, to see how it goes, will come for three weeks only. The reason why N.A.T.O.—and it is a N.A.T.O. decision—thinks it logical for the Germans to train here whilst we and the Americans train in Germany is that the tank forces are at an entirely different stage of training. For example, our tank forces need mobile battle training over very large areas of the German countryside, and those areas are freely given to us by the Germans; we need them and we must keep them.
On the other hand, the German troops who come here are at an elementary stage in their training where they merely need ordinary range firing practice and do not

393
need to do manœuvres or anything of a complicated nature. As this range is eminently suitable for them, it seems to N.A.T.O.—and I agree—a logical distribution of our facilities that we should have the battle training in Germany and that they should have the practice firing over here.
The answer to the third question is that if N.A.T.O. is to be a viable and efficient association of free nations, we must try to share out these facilities as fairly as we can. It is in response to discussions in N.A.T.O. and a lot of N.A.T.O. examination that this seems to be the most sensible way of helping the Germans by providing the facilities which the alliance as a whole needs.
Mr. G. Brown: May I put two further points? Will the Minister tell us why, if they are only coming for three weeks, it is necessary to amend the Visiting Forces Act? Secondly, is it proposed that other N.A.T.O. countries will also come and visit us here?
Mr. Watkinson: I should be very glad not to have to amend the Visiting Forces Act. But although, as I think the House knows, several hundred Germans have already had training here, they have come as individuals. I am advised that once a formation comes it is to protect the British public as well as everything else that this Act has to be extended.
In reply to the other point, it is open to the Americans, or any other nation which wants to come, to use the range. The only difficulty at the moment, so far as I know, is that there is not a demand for this somewhat elementary firing practice which apparently the Germans need.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether he would not agree that the best assurance that we can possibly have of any German military elements not getting out of control would be for them to be totally integrated with us and the whole N.A.T.O. system, being as interlocked as possible? For that reason, is not my right hon. Friend to be highly commended that this decision has been taken?
Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should have thought that the
394
greatest safeguard for the West and for those who remember two world wars is that Germany should be fully integrated into N.A.T.O.; and it is only fair that I should add that that is what the West German Government wish.
Mr. Donnelly: I am not clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If the reason for these forces coming here is to integrate the Western Alliance and to standardise training and equipment, and so on, then I can see that it is desirable and perfectly defensible, and I am prepared to help defend it, especially at this juncture in the international scene. On the other hand, if it is a question merely of this particular training ground, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made out a practical case. Why is it necessary to bring 600 men to this remote corner of Wales simply for this experimental exercise? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has to make out a much stronger case to get over the inhibitions and the memories which exist in this country?
Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. There are two answers. The first is, as I have explained and as I will try to explain again, that this is a N.A.T.O. decision. It is not something that the Germans and ourselves fixed up on a unilateral basis. It is N.A.T.O.'s decision that this is the best way to allocate very scarce training areas. Naturally, in the whole N.A.T.O. area there is constant pressure to diminish training areas. There is a lot of pressure on us in Germany not to exercise over farmlands and land that people would like to use for other purposes. But because we are firm in saying that we can only fulfil our obligations by doing this, we cannot refuse if the Germans say, "You have a firing range which suits us ideally. Can we use it?"
As to the question whether this is a trial run, I think that in the interests of the Germans and of ourselves they felt that we should do this to see whether it is a sensible thing to do in the broad N.A.T.O. interest. That is why we thought that the best thing to do was to have this battalion, to see whether the thing is practical and sensible, and if so, to continue it.
Mr. Bowles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these German troops are subject completely to British law?
Mr. Watkinson: Under the Visiting Forces Act, which applies to any visiting forces, the answer is that the German troops as individuals and off duty are subject to British law, like any other citizen. The Visiting Forces Act makes them, when they are in formation, subject to the military discipline from their officers. The whole operation, of course, is under British control.
Mr. A. Henderson: If this experiment is successful, is it intended to have Dutch, Belgian, or other national tank battalions here?
Mr. Watkinson: Certainly, if they wish to come. For example, the Americans are now making use of the Hebrides rocket firing range.
Mr. Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the darkening international scene. Is there any reason why he should take action to darken it still further? Does he realise that this action in allowing German forces, even in a token way, to spread outside their own country is completely contrary to the undertakings given at the time when Germany entered N.A.T.O. as a means of restricting the rearmament of Germany and its restoration to military power?
Mr. Watkinson: I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is making his own contribution to the darkening of the international scene in implying that it is right at this time to treat the Germans as some kind of second-class N.A.T.O. ally.
Mr. Wigg: Does the Minister agree that it is a quite simple proposition, that the Government, as a by-product of their economic and defence policies, first tried to sell the Germans the Centurion, then tried to sell them the Chieftain—the Germans would not have either of them—and now what the Government are doing is trying to sell them the gun?
Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the Government have sold them the gun.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We really cannot debate this now without a Question before the House.

KUWAIT (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
Mr. Wigg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order arising from the reply given by the Minister of Defence yesterday to Question No. 96.
The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his reply by saying that he was answering with your permission. I take it that that was a courtesy and that your permission in such circumstances is always given. Later in his reply the Minister said:
"With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 211.]
At that point, the right hon. Gentleman was, I presume, seeking the permission of the House.
When one refers to HANSARD this morning, one finds that there are three columns, not only concerned with details but containing a modification of a reply given by the Prime Minister on the 3rd of this month.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not a grave abuse of the rights and privileges of the House that a Minister should modify a statement in this way, particularly at a time when both Front Benches are agreed on the commitment of troops to Kuwait and the conduct of the operation, and the only recourse left to individual Members who may wish to question the Government is to put Questions on the Order Paper? Any hon. Member who does that then finds that his Questions are dealt with in this way, at a time when both the Government and the Opposition are agreed that no debate should take place.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's grievance, if any, must be with the Minister, as it were, not with the Chair. The Minister does not in those circumstances, I think, ask my permission in any form in which I can refuse it. The words are not, "With your permission, Mr. Speaker", but "with permission, Mr. Speaker".

397
As in the case of a Minister answering in one Answer more than one Question, he begins with the words "With permission". I think that that is a courtesy and it does not represent a position in which the Chair or the House can refuse him permission.
I think that the same applies to the unusual position here, where, having given part of his Answer orally, the Minister says, "With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT". That is really an operation which Ministers undertake, I suppose, to save the time of the House. Indeed, it would have been intolerable if all that long matter which went into the OFFICIAL REPORT had been put into our immediate post-Question Time yesterday.
The Chair could not undertake responsibility for censoring that kind of operation in any way because, of course, I do not in the least know what is in the statement which the Minister proposes to put in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no chance of looking at it. I regret that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. From the point of view of the Chair, I think that that rightly states the position.
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister injects into part of the statement he makes arising out of a Question put by an hon. Member, as was the case in this instance, a modification of Government policy which is not open to questions because it is inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT as an addition to his oral reply to the Question, what redress is there for hon. Members who wish to put questions to the Minister of Defence on that part of the statement which is added to his oral reply?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find some way, in order, in which to reproach the Minister. I should like to think about the best way, if he has difficulty about it. But I do not think that the merits of the matter can conceivably be for the Chair in these circumstances.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. Has it not always been the rule, Mr. Speaker, that one may not anticipate in this way Questions which are on the Order Paper? We have a large
398
number of Questions already on the Order Paper for today about Kuwait, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had Questions for Written Answer on the Order Paper for that day which were avoided by this device. With respect, we now find that there has been inserted in HANSARD a statement, nearly 2,000 words long, which gives a completely different version—a highly remarkable version—of the origin of the Kuwait expedition.
Today, when the Minister has purported by this means to talk about the disposal of troops in Kuwait, we are referred to his statement of yesterday for some information, and he refuses information about whether there are antitank guns there although we know that there are tanks in Iraq because the present Government supplied them—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member can make a speech about all these things in putting a point of order. Perhaps I can deal with his point about anticipation, as I understand it.
It seems to me that the difficulty about that is that the Minister was, in answering orally and putting the statement into the OFFICIAL REPORT, answering a Question which was then, in fact, on the Order Paper. No rule of anticipation can prohibit him from doing that. That is the problem.
Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to you that, earlier last week, I put a Question on the Order Paper dealing with the details of troop movements? The right hon. Gentleman declined to answer it on the ground of public interest. I put three Questions down on Friday, and he said that he would make a statement during the week. He did not have the courtesy to tell me when the reply would be made. Then, we find that a Question is arranged between the two Front Benches for yesterday—
Mr. Bowden Mr. Bowden indicated dissent.
Mr. Wigg: Whatever the Opposition Chief Whip may say, it had been prearranged to put that Question on the Order Paper, and it was answered in such a way as to preclude certain fundamental questions being put to the Minister.
Mr. G. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—if it be a point of order. The allegation is made that this was a prearranged Question. Since it was my Question, may I have your protection? There was no prearrangement. I put a Question on the Order Paper. I had no way of knowing what my hon. Friend was doing. It happened that the Minister chose to answer my Question. May I submit to you my own point of order? Should not my hon. Friend now withdraw his allegation? Am I not entitled to some protection from the Chair in this matter?
Mr. Speaker: We are getting a very long way from anything which could conceivably be a point of order for the Chair. I am not sure that I heard the entirety of what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said because there was a certain amount of noise, but if he asserts that, by reason of the procedure adopted, his Questions for Written Answer which appeared yesterday were not, in fact, answered, or were not answered sufficiently, he is in no sense deprived of a remedy because, if a Question is not answered, he can put it down again for answer so far as it was not answered.
Mr. Wigg: When I approach the Table to put down further Questions, I find that I am now precluded from so
400
doing because my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has given notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: I should be distressed to think that that had the effect that the hon. Member for Dudley thinks it has. My recollection of the notice was that it related to the weekly cost of what was called "this adventure". I do not think that the weekly cost was exactly the matter which the hon. Member for Dudley was pursuing.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order. According to the OFFICIAL REPORT, the notice of my Adjournment—when I get it—was confined to the question of cost, on which we have not yet had any information.
Mr. Speaker: It would appear that the hon. Gentleman and myself are in close agreement.
Mr. Wigg: I do not wish to pursue this any more, Sir, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said that he would like to be protected, may I say that I went out of my way to verify the facts in consultation with the Opposition Chief Whip.
Mr. Speaker: All this is a long way from anything which could be a matter of order for the Chair.

LEASEHOLD REFORM, WALES
3.51 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move,
That this House, noting with grave concern the hardships caused in Wales by the operation of the current leasehold system, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce forthwith legislation enabling leaseholders who are owner-occupiers to purchase the freeholds of their homes at a fair and reasonable cost.
Telegrams and messages which have come in from the Principality today indicate the very deep interest and concern which our people have in the subject of leasehold.
The problem of leasehold reform is not new to this House. As far back as 1885 a supplementary report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring into the housing of the working classes stated that legislation favourable to the acquisition on equitable terms of the freehold interest on the part of leaseholders would conduce greatly to the improvement of the dwellings of the people of this country.
Needless to say, opposition to this proposal was led by the Lord Salisbury of the day. He thought that the suggestion was at once objectionable and revolutionary, and that was the end of that for the time being. Select Committees of this House were directed to consider the leasehold system in 1889 and again in 1920. In the intervening years, over 20 Private Members' Bills have been introduced into this House seeking to ameliorate in some way the hardships of the operation of the leasehold system.
It was left for the Labour Government, in the 1940s, to set up a special committee of inquiry into the working of the leasehold system. Four hon. Members who are Members of the House now played a prominent part in that committee, which was known subsequently as the Jenkins Committee, being named after its second chairman. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who submitted a minority report of his own, was a member of the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. UngoedThomas), my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) also served on the Commit-
402
tee. The majority Report, which was signed by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan, rejected leasehold enfranchisement as a policy, partly for lack of evidence of any gross abuse of the system. The minority Report, which was signed by my hon. and learned Friend, came out strongly in favour of leasehold enfranchisement.
The first result of that report was that a holding Measure was introduced by the Labour Government of 1950. It was called the Leasehold (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Unhappily, it fell to the party opposite, due to its success in the 1951 General Election, to introduce permanent legislation based on the Jenkins Report. This it did in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. We opposed that Measure on its Second Reading because it failed to provide leasehold enfranchisement for owner-occupiers. Desipte the fact that every hon. Member opposite, including the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), went into the Division Lobby in support of the Second Reading of the Bill, we were unanimously against it.
In the debate on 30th April, 1953, the present Lord Chancellor, who was then the Home Secretary, was the spokesman for the Government, and he said:
"We are not in favour of enfranchisement…and our conclusion is that even a moderate scheme of leasehold enfranchisement runs into such difficulties that it is simply not worth while."
Later, in giving one of the main aims of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, he said:
"I feel that today the main need is for the right of occupation to be protected rather than for a new right of ownership to be conceded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 514, cc. 2351 and 2356.]
The first substantial point that I wish to make is that, since the Jenkins Committee reported, and since the 1954 Act was introduced, circumstances have changed so radically that the conclusions of the Jenkins Committee no longer have any relevance to our situation. Three new important factors have conspired to change the whole aspect of our leasehold problem. First, the change in town and country planning legislation, with the unparalleled leap-frogging in the value of land, has radically changed the problem of leasehold. Secondly, the inflationary influence of the Rent Act, 1957, on the value of property cannot be exaggerated, especially with regard to the leasehold

403
problem. Thirdly, the ground landlord's exploitation of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, has exposed leaseholders to practices little short of legalised blackmail.
The 1954 Act, in favour of which the hon. Member for Barry waxed so eloquent, seems to be completely lopsided. It is a ground landlord's charter, for it makes him judge and jury in his own cause. When leaseholders seek either to renew their lease, or to buy the freehold of their home, they are held to ransome. Leaseholders are completely defenceless before the ground landlord. First, it is the landlord who decides whether there will be any negotiations about either renewing the lease or buying the freehold. In many cases he arrogantly ignores communications from tenants about the renewal of the lease or the purchase of the freehold.
Secondly, it is the ground landlord who decides whether there shall be any renewal of the lease if there are negotiations or whether he will insist on the sale of the freehold, or vice versa.
Thirdly, the ground landlord lays down the terms and the tenant has to take them or leave them. The law is weighted completely in favour of the ground landlord. He lays down a time limit, usually 30 days, in which leaseholders have either to accept his terms or to lose their property.
Because of the profitability of the leasehold system, finance corporations have bought out a great many ground landlords. Today, South Wales is in the grasp of a few of these powerful speculative bodies. I welcome a director of at least one on the benches opposite. These finance corporations have South Wales in an octopus grip, and they are exploiting to the maximum their near monopoly powers. The City of Cardiff, the capital of Wales, is a shocking example of a city in pawn to absentee landlords whom we see only when we come to this House, when we see them sitting on the benches opposite.
I want to give the House some examples of how the leasehold system, which the Attorney-General defended so vigorously last week, when he said there was no need for a change in the law, is working in Wales. A constituent of mine in Riverside, Cardiff, who had
404
twenty-three years to run on his lease and whose ground rent was £3 10s. a year, applied to the Western Ground Rents Finance Corporation for his freehold in March, 1959. He was told by that finance corporation that he could not be allowed to buy his freehold but that in their grace the finance people would permit him to renew his lease for eighty years, taking into account the twenty-three years still to run, so that it was an addition of fifty-seven years. If the lease was renewed, however, he would have to pay a premium of £180 and the ground rent would go from £3 10s. to £12 10s. He refused the offer. That was in March, 1959.
In September, 1960—possibly his circumstances had altered—he came back to the same corporation and was told that he could have his lease renewed, but that the ground rent would go from £3 10s. not to £12 10s., but to £20, and that the premium would be, not £180, but £500. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Does the Attorney-General defend blackmailing efforts of that sort?
In the constituency of the hon. Member for Barry, who sits on the benches opposite, the freehold cost of a house in 1958 was £400, which the owner-occupier declined to pay. In 1960, however, two years later, the cost had jumped from £400 to £750. It had nearly doubled in two years. Is that what the Attorney-General thinks is a system that does not need changing?
I can quote another case of an owner-occupier with thirty-two years remaining to his lease. Western Ground Rents said that it could be extended to eighty years on payment of a premium of £345, the ground rent jumping from £9 10s. to £35 forthwith, although the lease still had thirty-two years to run. That is the equivalent to demanding from my constituent a premium of £1,161 for an extension of the lease for forty-eight years, with all solicitors' and surveyors' fees to be paid by the tenant.
The lifeblood is being drained out of Wales by the financiers, who are protected by the Government side of the House. These excessive premiums and extravagant freehold charges make legislation urgently necessary, not in the long term, but in the near future. The leasehold system works in an inflationary way because, very often, people have to renew the lease on their houses before

405
they can get a mortgage. Properties in Cardiff and right along the South Wales coastal belt and in the valleys become virtually unsaleable in the latter part of a lease and they become neglected.
I have an instance from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). It concerns a retired police officer, aged 80, who was receiving £5 a week. I know that age and income do not matter to finance corporations, but these things matter to this House, as we represent the people. This man was paying a ground rent of £2 12s. a year. He has been offered an immediate renewal of his lease for fifteen years, including the six years unexpired, at £30 a year instead of the £2 12s. He has refused.
I have one more illustration, from the City of Cardiff, of the operations of Western Ground Rents. Mr. Harold Turner, who lived at 51, Cathedral Road, Cardiff, was so infuriated by the demand of Western Ground Rents that he went to the Western Mail, to whom I pay tribute for the consistent and outstanding way in which it has campaigned for leasehold enfranchisement. I want today to pay my tribute in the House to the Western Mail for its attitude to this question.
Mr. Turner has twenty-three years to run on his lease. He pays a ground rent in Cathedral Road of £10 a year. Western Ground Rents said that he could have the freehold of his house for £2,315 and legal fees. That is equivalent to £18,520 an acre. The Attorney-General blandly told me last week, just as he is smiling now, that no change in the law was necessary.
What headlines there are when workers ask for an increase in pay, but these speculators, who do nothing to increase our national wealth, get increases beyond calculation. Our whole community, from the tip of Pembrokeshire right across to Monmouthshire, as the Minister for Welsh Affairs ought well to know, quite regardless of party loyalties, is in a state of fury about the machinations of these ground landlords and finance corporations and the callous behaviour of our absentee landlords.
Things have now reached such a pitch that some of the better ground landlords are appealing to finance corporations
406
like Western Ground Rents to behave. The Lord Lieutenant of the County of Glamorgan is highly respected. He is claimed as a friend by hon. Members on this side as much as by hon. Members opposite. Nobody would accuse him of being a Socialist. Indeed, to the contrary, he is a ground landlord himself.
In the Western Mail of 16th March, 1961, however, he was reported in the following terms:
"Property owners should not be too greedy concerning the sale of freeholds, Colonel C. G. Traherne, the Lord Lieutenant of Glamorgan and President of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Association of Building Societies, said at the Association's annual luncheon in Cardiff yesterday. There are occasions when the price our client has been asked to pay has been exorbitant and then we may not have been able to make the full advance."
I beg the Government Front Bench to realise that these are not the exaggerated claims of people with a grudge against landlords. These are the calculated statements of people with knowledge of the way in which finance corporations are exploiting the power given to them under the 1954 Act.
Although the Lord Lieutenant of Glamorgan appealed to the better nature of the finance corporations, he could have saved his breath. It is as useful to appeal to their better nature as it would be to pray for fine weather in a blizzard on a mountain top. These finance corporations are quite soulless. They are without feeling. They measure every application in terms of £ s. d. and disregard all human considerations. They are concerned with profits, not with people. They reject appeals, they scorn petitions and they rob the widow and the pensioner alike. The law allows them to do it.
Nothing but an alteration of the law will prevent this exploitation being continued. Exhortations from the Dispatch Box and exhortations by hon. Members and right hon. Members in the country will not stop these finance corporations having their pound of flesh. These people have done nothing to increase our wealth in Wales. They come there only for their dividends. They have never built a house, they have never provided a drain, they have never built a road or helped with our street lighting, and they have never helped in any way to increase the value of the land. But they are

407
cashing in on the labours of our community and stealing the reward of our labours.
I realise that it is easy to condemn these money-crazed financiers as social parasites. I realise that it is quite easy to do that, but the real culprits are on the Treasury Bench. The real culprits are those who use this House to protect finance corporations of this sort. The real culprits are those who put the power in their hands. That is why we are putting forward this Motion, a Motion which notes the grave disquiet and hardship which the present leasehold system is creating.
I say to the Attorney-General that there is not a Welsh Tory in South Wales who feels it safe not to join us on this issue. They all of them express the same anxiety, and express the same contempt for the machinations of these finance corporations, as I have expressed here this afternoon. It is undoubtedly a fact that the Welsh people are more united on this than on any other question.
Moreover, we feel that no further inquiry is needed. That is why I took my name from the Motion put down by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box). Indeed, some of my hon. Friends have done the same. We feel we have all the information necessary. I have already given instances this afternoon which surely call for remedy.
I would quote a most remarkable and outstanding article in the Western Mail of Tuesday, 4th July, referring to the Answers which the Attorney-General gave me in the House last week. It says:
"The danger is"—
and this is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's Motion—
"that further delay will exacerbate the situation. But it is perfectly clear from the remarks last week of the Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, that the Government either has not given this matter proper consideration or that it has callously disregarded the plight of many thousands of leaseholders, not only in South Wales but in other pockets throughout Britain. Sir Reginald seems to think that it is enough to reassure a man, whose father or himself has bought a house by dint of years of saving and self-denial, that he has no need to worry because the 1954 Act gives him security of tenure. What kind of justice is this, that
408
an archaic system, a legacy from the days of the robber barons, makes a man a tenant in his own home, having to pay a full economic rent with nothing to show for his thrift and no redress?"
That is the policy which the Attorney-General defended last week.
I think that the House ought to be aware that within the next twenty years thousands of leases in South Wales will fall in; 12,000 will fall in in the City of Cardiff. Although the information which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) gave us proved inaccurate, that nobody has been refused permission to buy his freehold, and although the hon. Member has had to admit that he was wrong in that, none the less I accept his statement that leases will fall in within the next twenty years. In the valleys of South Wales leases will fall in on a wholesale basis, and, therefore, every passing year, without legislation, pushes up the Prices, puts money into the pockets of finance corporations and makes the leaseholders' position and that of those who are seeking security in their own homes more intolerable.
The compensation on which enfranchisement is to be given we have left open. All we say in the Motion is that owner-occupiers should be able to purchase their freeholds
"at a fair and reasonable cost."
We do that because we realise that definitions belong to legislation rather than to Motions, and it is obviously the responsibility of those who introduce the Bill to deal with that question. The questions of amenity covenants and severance compensation and minor issues, as I regard them, would be dealt with by legislation, but the general principle ought to be accepted.
I realise that there are probably great differences between those on that side of the House and those on this on what is fair compensation. On 3rd March last, again in the Western Mail, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North is reported as having been addressing the Cardiff North Conservative Women's annual meeting. A cosy meeting, no doubt. Many of my neighbours will have been there, and delightful people they are—for Tories. The hon. Gentleman told that meeting:
"I do not doubt the sincerity of the Socialists in wanting to solve this problem, but their idea of a fair deal to both parties may differ considerably from our own."

409
The hon. Gentleman never spoke a truer word, because there is a wide gulf between us as to what the compensation ought to be to people of this sort.
The present Lord Chancellor, in the debate in 1953, posed two pertinent questions. He said:
"Is the compensation payable by the tenant to be related to the market worth of what the tenant is acquiring or is it to be something else? Is the right of enfranchisement to be limited to the leasehold occupier or to extend to the leasehold investor who sublets at a rack rent?"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 2351.]
We are quite clear in our Motion. We limit the leasehold enfranchisement to the owner-occupier, to the little family struggling to own its own home. We believe that every family has that inalienable right to own its own home—despite the views of the party opposite.
There are signs that the Government are conscious of the mounting pressure of public opinion; and it is only public opinion which shifts them. That is why we have initiated a great petition which is now in circulation, and for which three hon. Members opposite have declared their support, and which condemns the holding to ransom of the people of South Wales by these finance corporations.
I have in my possession a copy of a letter which was circulated by Mr. A. F. Dolman, a solicitor, of Bridge Street, Newport, Monmouth, to solicitors in South Wales, in which he says:
"The Lord Chancellor has asked for particulars of (1) any cases of actual hardship (2) of any hardships which are thought to result from the present system, and which may perhaps not have been brought to the attention of the Leasehold Committee and (3) to any new factors since 1950 which may have altered the situation in the meantime."
I have tried to base my remarks this afternoon as an answer to these three questions. I believe that I have provided instances of actual hardship. I believe I have provided instances of hardship which could not possibly have been brought to the Leasehold Committee because they are the results of the new factors of the town and country planning legislation, the Rent Act, 1957, and the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and these are new factors which, since 1950, have altered the situation completely.
I therefore believe that we have a right to ask the Government to think again. In the debate in 1953, my hon. Friend the
410
Member for Leicester, North-East stated that the root of the issue was whether we agree that it is the right of the tenant to decide whether he wishes to buy the freehold or extend the lease, or whether we believe it is the right of the landlord to decide whether the tenant shall buy, whether he shall renew, or whether he will take the property. We have no doubt in saying that it is time the tenant was emancipated from his present subservience to the landlord.
We believe that there is no more honoured word, no more sweet sounding word, in the language than "home". We are fighting for the homes of our people, and I hope that the Attorney-General will realise that today we speak for people who are deeply moved and deeply angered by the way in which exploitation is being conducted. Whether people own leaseholds or not, they hate to see injustice. The present system is immoral, is unjust, and is a denial of democracy, because it weighs the law down on one side.
The Welsh National Anthem begins with the words:
"Mae hen wlad fy nhadau".
"The land of my fathers is dear unto me." We ask the Government to accept the Motion so that the land of Wales can belong to the Welsh people and not to finance corporations, as at present.
4.21 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has moved the Motion standing in the name of his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself with the eloquence and charm that we have come to expect from him. Of course, the hon. Gentleman mixed with that charm some harsh comments about me and about my hon. Friends, but we also expect that from him. His eloquence and charm will not, I hope, lead the House to accept without question all the allegations and charges that he has thought right to prefer.
The hon. Gentleman has for a long time been an opponent of the leasehold system, in so far as that relates to ground leases. I have heard him make many speeches on the subject, and, if he will not take it amiss, may I say that I think that his speech today was the best that I have heard him make. It was, I have

411
no doubt, largely due to the activities of the hon. Gentleman that the Socialist Government appointed the Committee, to which he referred, presided over first by Lord Uthwatt and then by Lord Jenkins, to report upon these matters.
That Committee sat for a very long time and conducted a very full inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the majority of that Committee, after prolonged investigation, did not recommend that an occupying tenant of residential or other premises should be given the right to purchase compulsorily the freehold or any other prior interests in the premises. Nor did they consider any other form of leasehold enfranchisement desirable in addition to that existing under the Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 153, and the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920.
The Committee went on to recommend that occupying ground lessees should be given security of tenure. Then, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in 1954 we introduced the Bill which, after prolonged debate and discussion, reached the Statute Book as the Landlord and Tenant Act. It is true—this is really the complaint of the hon. Gentleman—that it contained no proposals for leasehold enfranchisement. But it did, among other things, provide for security of tenure for occupying lessees of residential property.
The hon. Gentleman and I took part in, I think, nearly all of those debates and, to me, what the hon. Gentleman has said today had a very familiar ring. Perhaps at this point I ought to say what I have said in all the debates on this subject in which I have taken part. I must disclose to the House, in accordance with the usual custom, such interest as I have in this matter. I say straight away that I have no interest in any property at all in South Wales, so that all the harsh things said by the hon. Gentleman about property owners and finance corporations and landlords in South Wales do not apply to me. I am a trustee of a trust which owns a considerable amount of property and which does let that property on ground leases. But, so far as I am aware, none of the ground leases is a ground lease of residential property. I have said that more than once in these debates until I
412
am tired of saying it. But I think it only right to say it once again.
It is true that eleven years have elapsed since the Jenkins Committee reported, but I differ from the hon. Gentleman when he says that the position of tenants holding ground leases to residential property is today worse than it was then. In my submission, and as I shall seek to show, their position is much better than it was when the Jenkins Committee reported, in consequence of the legislation placed on the Statute Book by a Conservative Government. We provided that security of tenure despite the termination of the ground lease—security which the party opposite failed to provide when in power.
Today, and on other occasions, the hon. Gentleman has bitterly attacked the ground lease system. While I am not speaking on behalf of Western Ground Rents, or any finance corporation, or any landlord, I should like to say a word generally about that system. I do not think that an attack on the system in general is justified. When the owner of land puts up a building and lets it, he demands and obtains from the lessee a much higher rent than he does when he lets the land and the lessee undertakes to erect the building. In the latter case, instead of paying the increased rent for renting the building, the tenant puts his money into putting up the building. In many instances, that has advantages both for the ground lessee and the ground lessor.
It is a commonplace that towards the end of a long ground lease the tenant is paying a far lower rent for the occupation of that property than the property would command in the open market. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West would not deny that many, if not all, of the ground lessees in South Wales are paying far less than they would be paying in rent for council houses or for similar property on the market today.
Mr. G. Thomas: They paid the premium.
The Attorney-General: The property is not theirs. The bargain made was that they would rent the land and put a building on it. What the hon. Gentleman keeps saying—and what, of course, is wrong—is that they are in homes

413
which they own. They are the homes in which they live, but they do not own them.
Mr. Thomas: They built them.
The Attorney-General: That was part of the bargain originally made. That is what happens under ground leases, whether it is residential property or any other kind of property. I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to alter the system. I am seeking to give reasons why the system has its advantages.
Ground leases have been granted, not only 150 years ago but all the time, and to my mind the system has some advantages. The other day, in a supplementary question to me, the hon. Gentleman spoke of ground lessees having bought their homes. But that is not the case. If they have bought their homes, they would not have to pay rent.
Mr. Thomas: What have they bought?
The Attorney-General: What they have bought is a long lease.
Mr. Raymond Gower: May I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? He said that if people had bought their homes they would not be paying any rent. Surely that is wrong. They can buy a freehold and still be charged rent. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is inaccurate.
The Attorney-General: If they have bought the freehold they do not pay rent any longer—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] They may create a rant charge, but the property is not held by landlord and tenant even then.
The hon. Gentleman has said that having to pay a full economic rent shocks these people. I am quoting his words and I hope that I am not misquoting him. But the tenant of premises falling within the protection of the 1954 Act is not—as the hon. Gentleman has suggested more than once—at the mercy of the landlord. The landlord cannot hold the tenant to ransom. He is not judge and jury in his own cause. Under the 1954 Act, if the tenant's lease expires, he can hold on and he and the landlord can agree a new rent.
But if they fail to agree as to the rent, the county court will fix the rent at what, in the opinion of the court, is
414
a reasonable figure for the dwelling-house. That is the statutory provision created by the 1954 Act, which does provide for security of tenure.
Mr. G. Thomas: A tenant in his own house.
The Attorney-General: A tenant in the house which he has rented.
Mr. Thomas: He bought it.
The Attorney-General: It is no use quarrelling about that. What he bought was an interest in the lease.
Mr. Leo Abse Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool) rose—
The Attorney-General: I should like to continue my speech. There is plenty of time.
The position has changed in the last eleven years in this respect. Eleven years ago, such tenants had no protection at all. They could be strictly held to the terms of their contracted bargains and forced to leave their houses at the end of the leases. Now, as I have said, thanks to the 1954 Act, they have security of tenure, and it is given to them at a fair price, fixed if need be by the county court.
Mr. James Callaghan: How long?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman says, "How long?" They can continue, and the landlords can only get possession if there is a plan for redevelopment.
Mr. Callaghan: Do they not become statutory tenants under the Rent Restriction Acts, and, if that is so, does it not mean that amendment of the Rent Restriction Acts could and would remove the protection from them?
The Attorney-General: An amendment of the statute law might remove certain protection given to them by the 1954 Act. The law can always be altered one way or the other. I am talking about the present position, compared with what it was before our 1954 Act, and it is merely a historical review of the situation. What I am asserting, and I do not think that anyone will seriously deny it, is that the 1954 Act did change the position of the tenants for the better.
Mr. John Morris: Surely the security of tenure created by the 1954

415
Act was fictitious, in that, first, if the landlord wishes to develop the property, he can remove the tenant, and, secondly, he has the ordinary remedy under the Rent Act and can get possession?
The Attorney-General: I do not regard that as fictitious. I think that the protection he has had since the 1954 Act gives real security of tenure—and this is an important factor—because he can go on remaining upon the premises after his lease has terminated.
The hon. Gentleman has said that having to pay the full economic rent shocks them, but let us bear in mind that they are in a better position than those who go to South Wales and seek to negotiate a lease of a house. They can stay on where they are, and, if need be, go to the county court to get a reasonable rent fixed. It is easy to use unjustified and extravagant language on this subject. I must confess that I do not consider that the security of tenure given on these terms can rightly be criticised.
I do not think, either, that one should exaggerate the size of the problem in South Wales. For the last eleven years or more the hon. Gentleman has constantly attacked Western Ground Rents, a company which owns, I am told, about 10,700 residential properties in South Wales let on ground leases. I am told, too, that during the years 1958–59–60, only two leases held by this company expired. Neither property was occupied by the leaseholder.
In one case, the company took over the statutory tenant; in the other, it sold the freehold to the occupier. I am also informed that between now and 1970, 73 of the company's ground leases will expire in Cardiff and 56 outside Cardiff, a total of 129, and, of those, 50 are occupied by the lessee. These are the facts, of which I have been informed, about that position.
The Motion moved by the hon. Gentleman calls upon the Government
"to introduce forthwith legislation enabling leaseholders who are owner-occupiers to purchase the freeholds of their homes at a fair and reasonable cost."
That is to say, to introduce legislation to enable leaseholders who are occupying the properties to engage in compulsory purchase of other individual's property. I must say that it would require very
416
strong grounds indeed to convince me that such a step would be right.
Then, what is meant by "fair and reasonable cost"? The hon. Gentleman has left that open today, but he has had leave to introduce a Bill, which has been published and which shows his views on the subject. I rather gather that what he means by "fair and reasonable cost" is so many years' purchase of the ground rent. I would ask him to consider quite seriously whether that would be fair and reasonable. I myself would not have thought it right to ignore the value of what would be bought; that is to say, the value of the reversion.
The Motion limits the giving of this right of compulsory purchase to owner-occupiers. Of course, there is a very natural sympathy with owner-occupiers, whether they hold under a ground lease or any other lease, when that lease is coming towards its end, but if this right was given to the owner-occupier to purchase at a price related to the ground rent, the purchaser could sub-let the next day at the full market rent. Is there really any hardship which would justify putting him in the position where he could do this? I am sure, having heard the hon. Gentleman and all he has to say—and I did not interrupt him—that I do not think that he has established that there is.
If the owner-occupier were to be given the opportunity to do this, why should the ground lessee who has sub-let his property for many years not be able to do the same thing? I do not understand why the argument applies to one and should not apply to the other. Suppose we gave this right for which the hon. Gentleman asks to the ground lessee and he enfranchised his property. He could sell it the next day at the fair market price, reflecting the value of the reversion, which, presumably, he is unwilling to pay. I find it a little surprising to hear the Opposition urging changes in the law which would permit of this profiteering.
I would remind the House that the minority Report of the Leasehold Committee, signed by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), proposed that the price payable on the compulsory enfranchisement of the leasehold

417
should be the fair market value of the reversion, with the sitting tenant protected by the Rent Restriction Acts, so there is a division of view, quite obviously, in the party opposite. That is what is meant by a fair price for acquisition, and that division of view has been present throughout all our debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Indeed, it has, among the party opposite, and the hon. Gentleman has sought to conceal that division by saying airily that we can leave that problem to be solved by legislation. The view expressed by those who signed the minority Report differs from the view of the hon. Gentleman.
I gather that the hon. Gentleman's view is that it should be so many years' purchase of the ground rent, and that, in my submission to the House, is a basis which is, by its very nature, bound to be unfair and to do injustice. If we want to do justice on this, we must look not only at the position of the leaseholder but also at that of the landlord. They are not all great landlords, and not all finance corporations.
It must be very rare indeed for the present lessors and lessees of these properties to be the persons who were parties to the original ground leases which are now approaching their end. We know that the freeholds have changed hands. Many of the leases must have changed hands, too. Others, again, have been sub-let by the ground lessees. In fact, I understand that more than two—thirds of the leasehold property in South Wales is occupied not by the ground lessee, but by a tenant paying an ordinary rack rent.
When the freeholds and the leases changed hands—this is a point that I would ask the House to bear in mind—the prices paid must have reflected the value of the property being bought and sold. The price paid by the freeholder would reflect the value of the reversion—not merely the capitalised value of the ground rent which the hon. Gentleman, with all his talk of fair and reasonable cost, would give him as compensation for expropriating his interest in the property.
When the lease changed hands, the lessee must have paid a price that took into consideration both the fact that he was buying a wasting asset and the fact
418
that he would, at the end of his lease, be liable under the repairing covenants. No one can seriously believe that when he bought his lease a fair and reasonable price for the freehold would have been what he paid for the lease and the capitalised value of the ground rent.
What the hon. Member proposes is a right of compulsory purchase to be given to a private individual of a confiscatory nature which would give the leaseholder an uncovenanted benefit and not compensate the freeholder for what he was parting with. I cannot think that this would be right. I know that this subject arouses great feeling and emotions. The hon. Gentleman certainly has left me in no doubt of that. I was delighted to hear him say today that he is no longer pressing for an inquiry, because only last week he was demanding one with all the emphasis at his command.
Mr. G. Thomas: I have changed my mind about that.
The Attorney-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will in due course change his mind a little more on this subject than he has on this point.
While I say that I know that this subject arouses great feeling and emotion, I cannot think that that is a good basis for legislation. It was so long ago as 1953, in our debate on the White Paper, that a very hard thing was said about some hon. Members of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said:
"Some of my hon. Friends appear to have an emotional fixation about the discarded Liberal Party policy of enfranchisement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th April. 1953; 514, c. 2453–4.]
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West, in the course of his speech and on other occasions, has sought to represent that landlords have been demanding extortionate prices for the sale of the freehold. By that, if I understand him rightly, he means prices in excess of the capital value of the ground rent. But I should be most surprised if he can produce—I should be glad if he would send it to me—evidence of prices being asked in excess of the fair value of the reversion. If he can produce that evidence, I should be glad to see it.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken today and on other occasions with great

419
passion of the landlord being judge and jury in his own cause, by which he seemed, as I understood him, to mean that the landlord was free to refuse any offer which he considered unreasonable. In that sense, of course, the lessee is himself judge and jury in his own cause because he is equally free to refuse an unreasonable offer.
Mr. G. Thomas: But he will lose his house.
The Attorney-General: No. Certainly, he is free to do so, for the Landlord and Tenant Act has put him in a strong bargaining position if his landlord wishes to sell. If the landlord makes no offer, he merely holds over at the end of the lease. He is in a strong bargaining position—this is what the hon. Gentleman ignores—because he has this security of tenure given him by the 1954 Act and cannot be got out of the house unless it is wanted for redevelopment.
Despite the eloquence and the emotion with which the hon. Gentleman moved the Motion, the case for legislation on the lines proposed in it and in the Bill which he has introduced is not, in my submission, made out. Examination of the facts, so far as they are available to us, does not establish that it would be either right or fair to introduce confiscatory legislation, legislation giving a right of compulsory purchase to individuals at prices less than the value of what they purchase. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Motion.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he tell the House whether he has any criticisms whatever of the present system of leasehold tenure of land, and, if so, what they are?
Hon. Members: Answer.
The Attorney-General: I shall not give way to the temptation to reply at full length to the hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that he was so much of a fisherman, but this time the fish will not rise to the fly which he has cast.
4.46 p.m.
Mr. Ifor Davies: Following the very powerful and effective opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)—I congratulate him heartily upon his
420
speech—I had expected the Minister for Welsh Affairs to rise and close the debate by accepting the Motion. But it appears, following the speech of the Attorney-General, that we have to continue to try to persuade the Government.
I should like to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman of one thing immediately. There is no division on this Motion on this side of the House. Indeed, there are hon. Members on the Government side who are in sympathy with it. Moreover, two of the most important newspapers in Wales are also in sympathy with it.
Listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I was reminded of a question asked in the House more than fifty years ago by the then Member of Parliament for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. David Lloyd George). His question was:
"Who made 10,000 people owners of the soil and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth?"
That question is very relevant in this debate, because the 10,000 owners have been reduced by take-over bids and modern financial movements, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend. But masses of the people are still regarded as trespassers in the land of their birth.
It is not only we on this side of the House who feel keenly about the matter. The Western Mail this morning refers to the matter as something near to the heart of Wales. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), on 1st April, 1960, when he introduced his own Bill, said:
"…this is one of the major subjects of controversy…."
I remind the hon. Gentleman of a further statement that he made. He said that it can
"truly be claimed that the rank and file, whether they be Conservative, Socialist, Liberal, Nationalist, or anything else, are largely united"—
that is the word, "united"
"in their dislike of the prevailing system of leasehold tenure as it affects dwelling houses in the Principality."
The hon. Gentleman also said:
"The problem exists to an extent"—
this is the answer to what we have been told by the Attorney-General, who said that it is not worse—
"which is scarcely to be appreciated by non-Welsh Members.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1960; Vol. 620. c. 1764–5.]

421
We have had proof of that again this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) also supported his hon. Friend. He said that the leasehold system was regarded by his constituents as a curse on Wales. That is strong language. He said that deep concern—similar words to those which we use in our Motion—was felt that more effective action had not been taken to solve the problem. Not only are hon. Members on both sides concerned, but the Press of Wales is also concerned. I shall refer to the problem outside Cardiff, for I also speak for West Wales.
I pay tribute to the editor of the South Wales Evening Post for an editorial published last Thursday in anticipation of this debate. The editorial said that the plea that we are making in this Motion,
"…for a change in an outmoded and iniquitous system"—
Those are not our words. The South Wales Evening Post is a very good friend to Members opposite—
"bequeathed to Welshmen by an earlier generation…is a just one, and Welsh Conservatives should support it."
The problem is of fundamental importance, and I urge the Attorney-General to realise that the Government should acknowledge that grave concern is felt not only on this side of the House, but also throughout the Principality.
Since I became a Member of this House I have been made acutely aware, both by volumes of correspondence—which I will not quote because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak—and also by personal meetings with the people I have the honour to represent, that they resent more than any other social injustice the way in which the leasehold system operates in Wales. It is also appropriate that we should be having this debate at a time when the effects of the present system are being felt more keenly than ever before.
Here, I want to cross swords with the Attorney-General about one comment which he made. He referred to the Jenkins Report. This was published in 1950, and it anticipated the present situation. The Report, referring to long leases, said:
"…there appears to be little justification for the belief that a specially large number is due to expire in the next year or two…"
422
But the next paragraph says:
"in about ten years' time, however, the effect of the mid-nineteenth century development should begin to be felt and over a period of 20 to 25 years there may be a noticeably higher rate of expiry."
The ten years is now up. That is why, as expected by the Jenkins Committee, the leasehold problem is now becoming increasingly serious.
I disagree with the Attorney-General when he says that the position is not worse than it was ten years ago. It is very much worse. Today, more than ever before, with these leases increasingly expiring, it is realised by many people, for the first time, that the ground landlord is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said, both judge and jury in his own cause. It is the landlord himself who decides whether he will negotiate at all with the leaseholders about either renewal of the leases or the sale of freehold rights. He demands to know what terms they are offering, and at no stage is there any sign of a freely-negotiated contract. I am sure that many hon. Members could produce evidence to that effect.
In my constituency of Gower, more than half the house properties are leasehold, involving, in many cases, entire villages in industrial areas. Names like Gwaun-cae-Gurwen, Cwmgorse, and Penclawdd come to mind. Last Sunday, a deputation came to see me. It consisted of six men who live in the same street, and it was led by an ex-miner who is over 70 years old—the best possible type of man. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) that this man is also a pillar of Nonconformity in Wales.
This man has lived in the same house for forty years and, by continuous improvements, has practically rebuilt it. It is not merely his house, it is his cherished home. Today, however, due to the existing leasehold system, he faces the threat of losing it after forty years. So, when defenders of the leasehold system talk about the sanctity of contract, we are entitled to ask, "What about the sanctity of homes?" There can be no sanctity about any contract if it is unjust. It has become the practice of the Government, as we heard again today, to defend their refusal to introduce leasehold reform by referring to the complexity of the problem and to the legal difficulties

423
For instance, the present Lord Chancellor, when he was Home Secretary, said, during the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, in his capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs:
"I spent many months trying to see whether I could find a scheme of leasehold enfranchisement which would work. I tried, and I failed. What has been shown is that when a genuine and well-intentioned effort is made to meet the difficulties which I have propounded, the only result is to create further difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th March, 1954; c. 18.]
The emphasis is always on difficulties, but the truth is that this is not a question of difficulties, but of objections. It is the Gentleman's objection to the principle of leasehold enfranchisement which is proving to be the main stumbling block to reform. But we on this side of the House have no difficulty, nor have many other people, because we have accepted the principle. The crucial decision that has to be made here today is not one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West rightly said, of detail here and there—that is not the issue—but whether we are to give a tenant, in the case of an owner-occupier, priority over the landlord's interests.
In the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, to which the Attorney-General referred at great length, I acknowledge that the Government have moved a little towards breaking the sanctity of the law of contract in this matter. Indeed, during the Second Reading debate on that Act, the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) protested at what he called
"…the violence which the Bill does to the law of Con tract."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1954; Vol. 522. c. 1837.]
Thus, the Government have already broken into the law of contract, and, despite its many weaknesses, that Act recognised—though in a severely qualified way—that tenants have some rights.
I appeal, therefore, to the Minister for Welsh Affairs, in particular, to go a step further when he winds up the debate and to accept this Motion, recognising that a Welshman's home, too, is also his castle. I hope that, after this debate, we shall find that the Welsh day this year has become memorable because the right hon. Gentleman has
424
agreed with us that no longer are we to be regarded as trespassers in the land of our birth.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. John Foster: I start by disclosing my interest as a director of Western Ground Rents, which I have done before. I should like to bring the problem into perspective. Throughout all these debates the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has exaggerated the problem and has erroneously stated the number of leases that will fall in. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, only two leases belonging to Western Ground Rents have fallen due in 1958, 1959 and 1960, and in the next ten years only 73 leases will fall in. Nonetheless, as I say, throughout the debates the hon. Gentleman has made wild and exaggerated claims that the whole of Cardiff is to be filched from the old owners—
Mr. G. Thomas: I never said anything of the sort.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that he never said anything of the sort, but I have extracted what he has said in the past. In the debate on the Address on 7th March, 1950, the hon. Gentleman said:
"Within the next 10 years, half of the city of Cardiff will be taken from the business people and householders by these finance corporations, unless leasehold reform is introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March. 1950: Vol. 472, c. 261.]
That is quite inaccurate as regards Western Ground Rents. As I say, only two of its leases have fallen in up to 1961—
Mr. Stan Awbery: But how many will fall in?
Mr. Foster: I am, at the moment, confining my attention purely to the wild, exaggerated statements made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. He made a similar statement to the House on 2nd November, 1950. He then said:
"…between now and Christmas a large number of homes in Cardiff will be lost to a financial corporation if the Government do not protect the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 426.]
That is quite inaccurate. It is nothing like that.

425
Again, on 7th March, 1950, speaking in this House, the hon. Gentleman said:
"In the Grangetown Ward, no fewer than 4,000 houses will be taken away from those who purchased them by these finance corporations, unless some action is taken during the lifetime of this Parliament…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 261.]
The fact is that there are only 3,139 houses in the whole of Grangetown. Of those, 951 are owned by Western Ground Rents. None fall in before 1974, and only 62 between 1974 and 1989. Why did the hon. Gentleman think that 4,000 houses would be taken away unless something was done in the lifetime of that Parliament?
On 15th March, 1948, the hon. Gentleman asked:
"Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that notices are being given on a large scale in Cardiff to people whose leases fall due within the next five years and that tenants are being asked to pay a purchase price of 175 years' purchase or lose their homes…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1693.]
The fact is that no notices were given by Western Ground Rents, who owned a substantial part of Cardiff. As to the purchase price of 175 years' purchase of the ground rent, the ground rent was only £1 a year, making £175, but the house was worth between £2,000 and £3,000—and we offered it to the tenant for £175—
Mr. G. Thomas: What about the cases I have given today?
Mr. Foster: It is important that the House should know how far the hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the case in the past. I can quite understand him squirming now and his hon. and right hon. Friends trying—
Mr. Awbery: The hon. and learned Gentleman is in a position to know. Let us have the truth.
Mr. Foster: In my experience, people do not make wild and exaggerated statements.
In Tribune of 6th December, 1946, the hon. Gentleman wrote:
"In South Wales thousands of leases are falling due each year, and this is the ground speculator's opportunity."
Quite untrue.
Speak mg in the House on 14th November, 1946, the hon. Gentleman alleged that under the present law people were
426
being blackmailed and robbed, and that the Marquess of Bute had sold the ground rents of 20,000 houses. He had sold the ground rents of 11,000 houses.
On 14th November, 1946, the hon. Gentleman said:
"Within the next 10 years the majority of the leases in Cardiff will be falling due."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 265.]
As I have said, in the next ten years 73 leases will fall due in Western Ground Rents share of Cardiff.
Today, the hon. Gentleman repeats his inaccuracies. He says that 10,000 houses in Cardiff—
Mr. G. Thomas: When did I say 10,000 houses?
Mr. Foster: It was either 10,000 or 12,000. If the hon. Gentleman said 12,000 houses, that makes it worse—
Mr. Thomas: I might point out that I have these figures from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken).
Mr. W. T. Aitken: The hon. Member says that, but I do not remember giving them to him. Would he tell me when and where I gave them to him, because I have no recollection at all of giving him any such figures?
Mr. Thomas: It may be that the hon. Gentleman's memory is failing, because when he last spoke in this House he mentioned the number of houses and I did him the courtesy of quoting the same figure. Further, the hon. Gentleman said that Western Ground Rents never refused to sell anyone the freehold, but he has had to eat his words and so has the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Foster: We are at cross-purposes. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that in the next twenty years the leases of 10,000 or 12,000 houses would fall in. That is quite untrue, and hon. Members can see that that cannot be right, because the number of houses in Cardiff in 1871 was only 5,000. In 1881 there were only 12,000 houses—
Mr. James Callaghan: And in 1891?
Mr. Foster: In 1891 there were 20,000 houses. It is, therefore, quite impossible for the leases of 12,000 houses

427
to fall in in the next twenty years—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is impossible, because, judging by the experience of Western Ground Rents, in that period we have 731 leases falling due—
Mr. Callaghan: It is quite right that they will not fall in, but the reason will be that a great many ground landlords are selling, and the intense resentment felt against the hon. and learned Gentleman's company is caused by the fact that if the company does want to sell it asks such extortionate prices.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the point. There are not that number of leases falling in in the next twenty years. It is a misstatement by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—
Mr. Awbery: That is quibbling.
Mr. Foster: No, it is not quibbling. If the matter is presented as a great problem, with the leases of thousands of houses falling in by Christmas or in the lifetime of a Parliament, the House gets a very different idea of the problem.
Let us see what sort of people the hon. Member for Cardiff, West supports. In 1948 he wrote to Western Ground Rents:
"I have been approached by Mr. I. Gaba…whose lease of the above properties expired last March."
The properties mentioned are Nos. 14, 15 and 16 Patrick Street:
"I understand the property is very old and that you have asked Mr. Gaba for the sum of £575 to renew the leases. He finds it impossible to pay this figure and in view of the fact that he wishes to buy the houses to help his daughter who is in poor circumstances, I should be glad if you would give sympathetic consideration to his request…"
How did it turn out? It turned out, as is shown by the answer of Western Ground Rents, that the hon. Member was wrong. The figure of £575 was for six houses, not three. It was for the freehold and not for the renewal of the lease. Mr. Isaac Gaba purchased the lease of six houses in March, 1940, for £200. After purchasing them, he must have received at least the Schedule "A" valuation, which would amount to an income of £1,152 for his outlay of £200.
During the time that Mr. Gaba owned these houses, the hon. Gentleman was
428
making representations for someone not in occupation. Western Ground Rents said:
"…the occupiers state no repairs have been done, the War Damage has not been attended to and the normal day to day maintenance has been done by them"—
Mr. Frederic Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it quite correct for an hon. and learned Member to quote correspondence between an hon. Member and a company, even if the hon. and learned Friend is connected with the company, in this extraordinary way?
Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order. Is it not deplorable that a Member of Parliament writing in his private capacity to a company should then find his name being bandied about in this way by another hon. Member? Surely, this is reprehensible—but something we expect from the directors of Western Ground Rents. To make it even worse, I have great reason to believe that the person of whom the hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking is now dead. I think that it is deplorable.
Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Since I am involved, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I cannot remember the incident to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers because, in the intervening years, I have dealt with thousands of constituents' cases. I therefore cannot check the accuracy or otherwise of what the hon. and learned Gentleman produces from the files of Western Ground Rents. But, since it would have been possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman—who, I realise, is a director of Western Ground Rents in Cardiff—to have produced many other appealing letters I have written for owner-occupiers, why does he only single out this one from twelve years ago? Is it not a breach of our privileges in this House that we should use our position as Members of the House, representing our constituents, to advance our own financial interests? Is not that a breach of privilege?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The responsibility of an hon. Member for his statements rests entirely on him. It is not out of order. As for any interest the hon. and learned Member has, he has declared it to the House.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I may say so, you have a great responsibility to safeguard the traditions of the House as well as the order of the House. May I ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the traditions of the House that in the circumstances quoted by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), an hon. Member should so use his position to produce private correspondence, which, as far as I know, he has no warrant to do, in order to bolster up his case on behalf of his company?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the Chair can comment on the conduct of hon. Members in that way.
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Hon. Members very often declare their interest—they may give information which comes from a particular industry or profession—but it is a very different matter for the hon. and learned Member to devote his entire speech to delivering the kind of argument that he might put quite properly in a court of law where he was openly and directly paid for it. To do so in the House of Commons, when he seems to be acting under the same kind of principle, is utterly disgraceful. Again, might I remind you, Sir, that this matter was not originally raised from this side? Many hon. Members on this side were extremely reticent about raising it, because they were aghast about what was happening. It was originally raised, quite properly, by an hon. Member opposite. We are witnessing a disgusting exhibition, and I must say that I have never before heard anything like it in the House of Commons.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point that rests with me. If the hon. Member has a substantial complaint against the hon. and learned Member he should put down a Motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Morris: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. and learned Member to confine his remarks to what is happening in Cardiff, ignoring the remainder of Wales and all the other considerations?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That depends on what the hon. and learned Member speaks about.
Mr. Foster: I am glad to see that it hurts.
Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member is getting rich out of Cardiff.
Mr. Foster: Obviously, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West did not like it because it showed the kind of people he was appealing for. It is quite obvious that Western Ground Rents has been attacked throughout these debates, throughout the years, and the hon. Member did not spare Western Ground Rents. Obviously, it is quite in order that Western Ground Rents should defend itself.
Mr. Morris: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. and learned Member specifically to come to this House and confine the whole of his speech to defending one company, without declaring exactly the extent of his interest in that company?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member's speech is a matter for himself.
Mr. Foster: As I was saying, Western Ground Rents is held up as robbing the widow and as refusing to answer tenants who want to buy their leasehold interests, and it is obviously only just that Western Ground Rents should have a spokesman.
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As the hon. and learned Member is so clearly misunderstanding his function as a Member of Parliament, will you allow me to move a Motion that he be no longer heard?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot accept that Motion.
Mr. Foster: I can understand that when one points out the inaccuracies and mis-statements levelled at Western Ground Rents, hon. Members opposite should get in a heat and try to raise a lot of points of order. If I may pass now to the policy we have adopted in Western Ground Rents—
Mr. Awbery: May I ask the hon. Member one question? I am rather disturbed as to whether he can answer it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member has not given way.
Mr. Foster: I think that my speech has been sufficiently interrupted up to now.
Mr. G. Thomas: Come and make it in Cardiff.
Mr. Foster: The objection of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West is that when leases fall in the people are robbed of their homes. He said in his speech today that Western Ground Rents gives the tenants 30 days in which to accept the terms or lose their property. That is another inaccuracy. Until the leases fall in, they cannot lose their property. If somebody writes in and asks the ground landlord what he would have to pay for the purchase of a freehold or have to pay for a new lease, it is only natural to state the terms in which that offer to the landlord can be accepted or not. It is a complete misrepresentation of the situation, if there are 20 years or 25 years of a lease to run, and if the landlord says he wants £x for the freehold and would like an answer in 30 days, for the hon. Member for Cardiff, West to say that the tenant is going to lose his home in 30 days. It is typical of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West to get a series of mis-statements into this debate and a series of emotional statements which have no foundation in fact. I have given some instances.
If the ground landlord offers to sell the freehold for the price of the reversion calculated according to the tables, then it seems to me that he is offered a fair and reasonabe price. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who makes the tables?"] The tables are made on mathematical calculations. If the party opposite is also going to overthrow mathematics in this proposed legislation, it will have to go a very long way. What hon. Members opposite would wish is for the tenant to have his house as a freehold under the market value so that he can then go and sell it.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: How does the hon. and learned Member justify a rise from £180 to £500 in premiums in one year if it is a mathematical calculation?
Mr. Foster: The tables may have been worked out wrongly or the market price may have gone up—
Mr. Awbery: Will the hon. and learned Member give way? I have rather an important question to ask.
Mr. Foster: I cannot give way. I must answer the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen).—or if the market price has gone up for that house in those two years, the market price is the reversion price, discounted by 5 per cent. In the majority of cases, when a tenant asks for the sale of the reversion, he is himself wanting to sell the house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That can be proved.
Mr. Abse: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me—
Mr. Foster: No, I am afraid I cannot.
Mr. Abse: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to hear the truth.
Mr. Foster: I can understand the heat of hon. Members opposite. I can understand their excitement when confronted with the facts. The facts are that in the great majority of cases tenants in Cardiff—
Mr. Abse: The hon. and learned Gentleman has never been there.
Mr. Foster: As I was saying, the facts are that when tenants in Cardiff ask for the freehold to be sold to them it is because they propose to resell the house. The reason is that if the freehold is married with the reversionary interest one gets a bigger price. It is no good the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) saying that is not true. It is true.
Mr. Callaghan: I know a good deal more about it than the hon. and learned Gentleman does.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that he knows a good deal more about it than I do. I have shown by my quotation from the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that he was not aware of the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Hon. Members opposite always shout "Shame", "Disgusting" or "Sit down" when they are confronted with the facts.
Mr. G. Thomas Mr. G. Thomas rose—
Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the Chair he will be allowed to reply to my speech.
I want to bring the facts to the attention of hon. Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are the directors' fees?"] As if it matters what are the directors' fees. Hon. Members will find that they are very modest indeed. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West mutters that I have made a fool of myself. I understand his resentment. The policy of Western Ground Rents has been attacked in debate after debate by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. The policy of the company is to sell the freehold to every tenant who wants to buy it except in very exceptional cases. The exceptional cases are those where, for reasons of good estate management, the freehold should not be sold. That, again, is true.
Mr. Callaghan: Every reputable solicitor in Cardiff denies what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: On a point of order. I came into the Chamber because I wished to hear the debate. The point of order which I wish to put to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is whether it is not intolerable that hon. Members who, rightly or wrongly, dislike an argument should make it quite impossible for the argument to be fairly put or far it to be heard.
Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order.
Mr. Donald Box: Be quiet.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must not say "Be quiet" to me. Is it not exceptional, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we have to sit here for years, as I have done for sixteen years, before hearing a director's report on behalf of his company?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that the debate will continue quietly.
Mr. Foster: In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I gather that at this stage I have the approval of hon. Members opposite. The reason my speech has lasted so long is because of
434
the interruptions of hon. Members opposite.
I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in asking the House to reject this Motion, because the debate is founded on facts which have been mis-stated and which have been laid in an atmosphere of vindictive emotionalism.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. Llywelyn Williams: I do not want to refer to the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster). I think that it was in shocking taste, and I strongly disapprove of the whole idea of an Englishman interfering in Welsh affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am certain that no Englishman would have dared to interfere in a debate on Scottish affairs as the hon. and learned Member has done in this debate, particularly when he has such a very obvious personal financial interest in the subject of the debate.
In almost eleven years' experience of the House, I have never found it more difficult to contain myself than I did at one stage of the speech of the Attorney-General. Physically, I suppose, we were about 12 or 15 feet apart, but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking we wore thousands of miles apart. He seemed 'to be speaking from another world from that in which I live. He seemed to be speaking from outer space. He did not seem to see things with the same purpose in mind as I see them.
For the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that when a person has either bought a house or built a house and has occupied it for the best part of fifty or sixty years, during which time he has looked after it carefully, that that house is not that person's home is just making language completely meaningless.
The whole trouble of this question of leasehold reform is, basically, that it has relevance for a comparatively small part of the British Isles. It means nothing at all in Scotland. Scotland has no leasehold system. The residents of the larger part of England would not know what we were talking about, because in most parts of the country leases are for 999 years. Thus, to all intents and purposes,

435
the properties concerned are complete freeholds.
I am certain that if this leasehold system, which I unhesitatingly call an iniquitous and unjust system, obtained in every part of the United Kingdom, no Government, Tory or Labour, would have withstood to this day the pressure that would have been brought to bear upon them. It is a reflection—and the reflection is as much on hon. Members on this side of the House as on hon. Members opposite—on our sectionalism, on our segmented political outlook on life, that there is in all those areas and among representatives of those areas not concerned with the leasehold system an almost complete indifference to what I would call a basic and fundamental issue.
I could never understand in 1953 and 1954 when Lord Morrison, as he is now, was conducting our opposition to the commercial television Bill then before the House why it was insisted in our party that we should obey three-line Whips on an issue which all my instincts told me then meant nothing to the ordinary people of the country. As events have proved, the ordinary people of the country are not interested whether a television programme is A.B.C., B.B.C., I.T.V., X.Y.Z. or anything else. As long as they can look at television, that is all they want. We as a party have now withdrawn our opposition to commercial television. But, contemporaneously with the passage of that Bill through the House of Commons, the Landlord and Tenant Bill was going through, and at every stage of that Measure, which dealt with basic human issues, we had to make do with a two-line Whip. That proves my point that the segmentary outlook on great burning political issues is to be deprecated and deplored.
This is essentially a Welsh problem, although it has some impact in certain areas in England. If we speak to a person from the United States of America, and explain to him what happens under our leasehold system, he does not know what we are talking about. There is no other country in the world where this leasehold system obtains. It is about time that we threw off this last relic of feudalism—this last flagrant injustice. We have thrown off many flagrant injustices in the course of the last fifty or sixty years;
436
surely it is time that this last outstandingly flagrant injustice should be thrown overboard.
It is an acute problem not only in the capital city of Cardiff but in the industrial valleys of Wales, because our industrial system was built up from about 1850 onwards, and we have literally thousands of houses in Wales which were built under the leasehold system and whose leases are now beginning to lapse. Mr. David Rhys Grenfell, who was Father of this House for many years, wrote a fine pamphlet on leasehold enfranchisement, in which he stated that there were 350,000 houses in Wales under the leasehold system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has also written a fine Fabian pamphlet, in which he says that the total number of such houses for the whole of England and Wales is 700,000. From those figures it can be appreciated that the problem is much more acute in Wales than in other parts of the country.
The problem was brought home to me in a very clear and unforgettable way when I had the great privilege of living during one of the most formative periods of my life in the birthplace of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), in a village called Bethesda. That village, with its environs, was owned by one person—Lord Penrhyn. I have never met a finer type of men than the quarrymen of Bethesda. They are cultured and independent, and a natural product of Welsh nonconformity—a word which has been used with some opprobrium in this House, quite wrongly, because it is something to be proud of. They are the natural products of nonconformity, with its particular emphasis on the individual and individual responsibility.
I believe that in our industrial areas there is a higher percentage of owner-occupied houses than there is in English industrial areas. In many of our industrial areas the figure is as high as 50 per cent.
Mr. Arthur Probert: It is sometimes 70 per cent.
Mr. LI. Williams: I am told that in some areas it is as high as 70 per cent. The Minister for Welsh Affairs should see this problem as a personal

437
challenge in relation to his responsibility for Welsh problems. This is a real Welsh problem. Great injustice is being done because of the way in which this system is working out.
I do not wish to exaggerate the picture. Some people are prone to do that, and nothing is achieved by it. I agree at once that this system works in more than one way. First, there are the reasonable landlords, and the directors of landed estates, with what I would describe as a progressive social conscience. I testify willingly to the way in which the Llanover Estate, in Monmouthshire, has dealt with owner-occupiers. I bought the freehold of my home two or three years ago for what I regarded then, and still regard, as a very reasonable price. That is the common experience of those who live on that estate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is not here, but I am sure that he would agree that the Stepney Estate in Llanelly, my home town, is another with a fine and honourable record. Nobody would wish to do anything but pay tribute to the approach of these two estates to the leasehold system.
Next we come to the type of estate or company which is obviously represented by some hon. Members opposite, where a point-blank refusal is given to people wishing to purchase their own freeholds. There has never been a time when I was not a Socialist, but the seven years that I spent in Bethesda intensified my Socialism, because the basis of Socialism is a burning, abhorrent hatred of injustice. That is one thing that I have not lost. God knows—and I want to make a personal confession now—that eleven years in Parliament have robbed me of things which I am not proud of losing, some of my idealism, but I have not lost my sense of injustice, and when I remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon can remember even better than I can, how quarrymen who had actually built their own houses and had owned them for 99 years were told, at the end of that period, that everything had to be restored to Lord Penrhyn, in Penrhyn Castle, I realise that that was one of the most heart-breaking social pictures that it has ever been my lot to see.
There are some arguable propositions, but this is surely a priori; this is axiom-
438
atic. It just cannot be right that a person who has built a house should be held not to own it.
I cannot understand how the Attorney-General could speak so coldly of the cherished possession of a family, or a succession of families. That is why, in no pseudo-dramatic way, I say that a terrific gulf exists between us. Many people are much nearer to my way of thinking than the Attorney-General suggests, but there is surely a great gulf between us if he can tell me that such property should revert to a ground landlord who has never spent a penny-piece on it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct I am either crazy or simple and completely hopeless in my ability to understand the situation, but all the lawyers in Christendom will never persuade me that such a situation is defensible.
That is the basis of our case. That is why we have brought it forward in this debate. Our people are genuinely suffering, and are full of anxiety and fear, because of a system which is wicked and which stands condemned on all counts.
We have this point-blank refusal to allow people to purchase the freehold of the property which they have come to regard as home. There is also the question of the exorbitant prices, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said in his most moving and gripping speech, the question of people taking advantage of all the developments which have taken place in the last five years.
I shall not weary the House with more than one example. I shall not mention the commercial enterprise involved in this case, because I have appealed to it to have second thoughts and I do not want to prejudice the fresh negotiations. This widow, who is an old-age pensioner, has a small house but no ground apart from that on which the house stands. The lease has eleven years to run. The annual ground rent is 4s. a year, so I leave it to the imagination of hon. Members to decide how extensive that piece of land is.
This company, which last year made a profit of millions of pounds, one of the largest industrial enterprises in the country—paradoxically with a fine record in human relations in other aspects

439
but probably in this instance actuated by someone sitting in an office in London who has never seen Abertillery and who thinks only in terms of the value of property in London, has asked this poor widow to pay £175 plus solicitor's fees for the freehold of the property. This is a shocking example. Even though Ahab coveted the vineyard, he was at least prepared to pay for it. On my calculations £175 represents 875 times the ground rent. If any hon. Member can justify that, I will be horrorstruck with amazement.
I ask the Minister to conduct a new investigation. We had the Royal Commission, and we, as a party, are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir L. UngoedThomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for what they did and for the recommendations they made in the minority Report, but I ask the Minister, because he is the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and a member of the Cabinet, to say that the time has come to call a halt to a system which has caused untold mental, physical, and spiritual suffering to decent people; people who have been brought up on the virtues of thrift and independence and who have purchased their own homes. I regard it as the Minister's bounden duty to do something practical to help them.
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: Even though the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr. G. Thomas) in moving the Motion threw a few political quips across the floor of the House I find myself very much in sympathy with what he said.
Just over thirty years ago a Bill dealing with leasehold enfranchisement was introduced in this House by the late Daniel Hopkin, the then hon. Member for Carmarthen. It is not surprising that a succession of similar Bills have been introduced by Welsh Members since then. Indeed, as many hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, throughout the years there has been a succession of leasehold Bills. From 1900 to 1914 there was one every year. In 1923 there were three such Bills, and Bills of a similar kind appeared in 1927, 1928 and 1929. The history of Parliament during the last seventy-five years is bestrewn
440
with the relics of abortive leasehold Bills.
The earlier Bills reflected a general United Kingdom interest in this subject, but, I think it is fair to say that since the late Daniel Hopkin introduced his Bill in 1931, a passionate interest in this subject has remained constant and unabated only in Wales.
In my constituency, in that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), and indeed in every other constituency between Pembrokeshire and Monmouthshire, every General Election candidate, irrespective of party, is likely to be asked about his attitude to this subject. It is sometimes amusing to see a "carpet-bagger" candidate quickly learning something about this subject, if he has not already done so.
The first question which the Government should ask—the first question which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs must surely ask—is why, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is right that there is no special Welsh leasehold problem, interest in, and concern about, this topic has remained constant throughout the industrial and thickly populated parts of South Wales. I suggest that there are few, if any, other parts of Great Britain where audiences of Labour, Conservative, or other supporters invariably applaud any speaker who confesses to be in favour of some modification of the present leasehold system, and give short shrift to a candidate who indulges in specialised legalistic arguments on this issue.
If, after having considered why this interest remains so great, my right hon. Friend is still doubtful, he should remember that in the last twelve months the Wales and Monmouthshire area of the Conservative and Unionist Associations has passed a resolution calling for legislation to give leaseholders of dwelling-houses the right to apply to a court or tribunal for an extension of leases, or for the right to purchase the freehold on terms to be assessed. This was a unanimous resolution passed by those who by definition are the leaders of the Conservative Party in the Principality of Wales. Would any other area in Britain have passed such a resolution?

441
Welsh people are largely united on this issue. What the Conservatives of Wales asked for in that resolution is not altogether dissimilar from the more general terms implied in the Motion we are considering today, because, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West pointed out, he has shifted his ground slightly and has come some way to meet those who think that a straightforward enfranchisement or some system of so many years purchase is open to severe criticism.
Those facts should convince Ministers that the issue in Wales is no ordinary one. It has been suggested that this issue has been kept alive artificially by intense propaganda. The reverse is the case. It is true that there is a South Wales Leaseholders and Owner-Occupiers' Association under the ardent direction of Mr. Watson Cliffe, but this organisation has very limited resources, and indeed has functioned to any extent only in recent years.
The issue of leasehold tenure in Wales has been, and is, kept alive by the day-to-day problems of ordinary leaseholders who are unable to obtain mortagages on leases of less than thirty-five years; those who are faced with excessive demands for an enhanced rent with or without a premium; and those who are not permitted by the owner or the property to purchase the freehold at any price. The issue is also kept alive by experienced estate agents who find themselves helpless to assist these people.
I do not wish to destroy leasehold tenure. From my experience as a solicitor and as a constituency Member, I am convinced that in many cases leasehold tenure serves a useful and valuable purpose.
Hon. Members who represent South Wales constituencies see their constituents acquiring leasehold houses. In some cases they prefer to acquire the leasehold rather than spend a capital sum of £250 or £300 on the freehold of a new house. Even so, I do not accept the argument sometimes advanced that even a measure of leasehold reform designed to give the leaseholders the opportunity to acquire the leasehold or to renew it on fair terms is likely to deter freeholders from granting leases in future. If a freeholder is happy to alienate from himself and his family the ownership of a plot of land for as long
442
as ninety-nine years he is not likely to be deterred by the knowledge that this may later be extended on fair and reasonable terms.
There is little doubt that our problem in many parts of Wales has arisen not from the nature of leasehold tenure but from its peculiar incidence in many parts of the Principality. I could take my right hon. Friends to streets in Barry, Cardiff and Newport where most of the houses are leasehold. There is a solid array of leasehold houses, on a 99-year term originally, much of which has expired, broken only by an occasional house the owner of which has been fortunate enough to acquire the freehold or to have the lease extended. This has had at least two results. In the first place, it is difficult to sustain the argument that all these people became leaseholders of their own free choice. How could a person who wished to own a house do other than buy one of the available houses which in most cases were leasehold? Therefore, any suggestion that these people freely entered into the contract should be modified by consideration of the fact that in most cases they had no choice.
If an estate agent in South Wales has a freehold property for sale he deems it to be such an outstanding event that he is tempted to embrazon the fact in letters of gold. Where in the United Kingdom outside South Wales would hon. Members expect to see an advertisement such as I saw recently in South Wales which declared in very large type, "Freehold dwelling house for sale: Vacant possession"? The advertisement proceeded to set out details of the accommodation.
Mr. A. R. Wise: An advertisement of that kind could be seen in the City of Westminster.
Mr. Gower: In South Wales even a 999 years' lease is something to be spoken of with awe. In one part of my constituency houses are held on a 999-year lease rather than the usual ninety-nine years and the people of that locality are regarded with something like envy by their neighbours. Another result of all this is that large numbers of dwelling-houses in parts of Wales have now leases of less than thirty-five years unexpired. This fact has a number of consequences. Mortgages can seldom be obtained on

443
terms of thirty-five years or less. Whole streets of such houses are at present almost unsellable because the prospective purchasers cannot obtain short-term mortgages.
I can speak with some knowledge of this matter. Both professionally and as a Member of Parliament I have tried to negotiate the acquisition of freeholds or longer leases on behalf of my clients and constituents. But the result of the situation in South Wales is that first-class legislation passed by this Government and their predecessors to enable local authorities to advance 100 per cent. to people who wish to buy is abortive in the case of many of these houses. Legislation passed to enable building societies to advance money on houses built before 1919 is also largely abortive in respect of whole streets in the towns of South Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs may say that the remedy for these people is to buy the freehold or to negotiate a now lease. In some cases they try and they succeed, but in others they fail. I have in mind the cases of those who shortly after the war, when there was a great shortage of accommodation, had to acquire homes and they bought leasehold houses which then had fifty years unexpired. Mortgages were obtainable for that period, but by now the unexpired term is so short that it is impossible to sell these houses.
In some cases freeholders have behaved extremely well. I would refer in particular to the Plymouth Estates Ltd., and Barry Dock Syndicate Ltd., both of which have sold freeholds on eminently fair terms. There is a street in Barry where some leaseholders bought from the Barry Dock Syndicate on reasonable terms, but other houses in the same street are owned by an individual who is not nearly so fair. Some people paid the syndicate about £100 but the other individual wants nearly £700 for similar small terrace houses in Barry Dock.
The same individual apparently is making similar demands in Newport. I have a letter from a correspondent in Newport which reads:
"Dear Mr. Gower, I am the leaseholder of 3–4 James Street, Newport for 99 years from 25th March, 1893, at an annual ground rent of £3–31 years to run. I asked if he would sell me the reversion and he wants £500 which works out at 167 times…"
444
Other leaseholders face even worse problems. In some parts of Barry the freeholders are a provident insurance company which sometimes sells a block of properties but rarely a single house. The reason the company gives for that is that it would be inconvenient for management to sell singly. I can understand that, but it is small consolation for the poor individual who has a lease of less than thirty-five years and wants a sufficient term to enable him to raise a mortgage. Another freeholder in South Wales is the Glamorgan County Council. Its reply to requests for the sale of freeholds is a polite refusal. I can understand that the council is dealing with public funds, but that again is small consolation to the leaseholder when he finds that he cannot hope to purchase the lease at any price.
I am glad that the Government, through the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Law Society, have taken the step of addressing a letter to solicitors asking for details of some of the difficulties which have already been described in this debate. As far as it goes, this will be helpful and it is a praiseworthy step, but solicitors are busy professional men and few of them will have kept records of the abortive cases which they have had in recent years. More knowledge about this subject could be obtained from a short conversation with estate agents in Barry, Cardiff and Newport. Many of them have described to me the difficulties and hardships they have encountered among leaseholders and the problems which arise from short leases.
I believe that I have said enough to explain why I was sadly disappointed not only by the speech but also by the unaccommodating attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I had hoped for something more. Indeed, I had been led to expect by what I read in the Western Mail that at any rate there would be some little light, some little hope. I am strengthened in that view by the form of the Opposition Motion, which does not ask for a sort of blank enfranchisement, but for legislation to enable Welsh leaseholders who are owner-occupiers to purchase their freeholds
"at a fair and reasonable cost."
Is not it strange that people of all parties in Wales should be so concerned about this question? Is not this the sort of

445
problem to which the Government should be concerned to find a solution? In recent years there have been many Bills of this kind. I have tried myself to devise in Bills I have tendered some sort of machinery to assess a fair and reasonable price. It would make nonsense of all I have said on every platform, and of all I have said since I entered politics, if I voted with the Government tonight. I regret this deeply because I do not lightly vote against my own side, but on this issue I am sadly disappointed.
I believe that this is a real issue in the industrial parts of South Wales. What we want is not something unreasonable but something to meet the specialised needs of the localities in which we live and which we represent. I should be failing in my duty to my constituents and those who sent me to this House—to the Conservatives in Wales who nearly all take the same view that I have been expressing—if I did not take this course. For that reason, reluctantly and sadly, I shall have to vote against the Government.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: I should like, first, to make a comment upon some of the observations of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams) and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). The hon. Member for Abertillery condemned the longterm leasehold system root and branch, whereas the hon. Member for Barry saw considerable virtue in it.
On a number of occasions since I have been here, whether there has been a Conservative or a Labour Government, the House has passed Bills which perpetuated the long-term leasehold system. For example, in the development corporations of the new towns the value of the long-term leasehold system has been recognised in legislation passed by parties represented on both sides of the House. It is also true that local authorities, whatever their political complexion, have shown themselves willing—indeed anxious—to perpetuate the long-term leasehold system.
Although we have heard of instances today, and while instances no doubt exist, in which that system has led to problems of great personal difficulty which have to be faced, I do not think it right to make sweeping statements in
446
entire condemnation of the whole system. We have heard during the course of the debate a great deal about the bad landlord and we have heard compliments paid to some good landlords. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) used very strong words indeed in relation to landlords, but the strong words he used were mild compared with words which have been used by the Minister for Welsh Affairs in relation to landlords. I shall quote his description of landlords in a speech he made in this House last year. This is what the Minister said with regard to landlords:
"I think that there are some swindlers in the market, and if information is given to me I am ready to have an examination made of those people who may be sailing too close to the wind."
He ended by saying:
"I should like to deal with them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 1599.]
The Minister was not referring to the same group of landlords as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West had in mind. The Minister was referring to that group of landlords who were taking a mean advantage of their position under the Rent Act of 1957 and, in particular, those who were taking advantage of their position arising out of Section 11 (1) and Section 11 (2) of that Act. The Minister made it perfectly clear that, despite the fact that landlords in that category were exercising their legal rights and rights given to them under the Rent Act, if they were in fact making exorbitant and grasping demands on their tenants he certainly would be prepared to intervene.
The quotation I have made from the speech of the Minister in this House was one which he thought fit to quote in a Ministry circular, Circular 45/60, issued in relation to this matter on 13th August, 1960. The Minister has claimed that his statement in that regard and the issuing of that circular has had a most salutary effect on the behaviour of the type of landlord to whom he was referring. It is quite clear that the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to intervene to prevent exorbitant, extravagant and grasping demands being made by landlords in the exercise of their rights under existing legislation. The particular powers he had in mind in that regard were powers given under

447
the Housing Act, 1957, in relation to the acquisition by compulsory purchase by local authorities of property of landlords behaving in that fashion.
It is true that the tenants in that category were faced not only with exorbitant financial demands but, if they could not meet those demands, with the prospect of being dispossessed. The persons we have in mind, the persons referred to in South Wales, by reason of the Act of 1954 are, in the main, protected in their security of tenure, on terms. If the demands made by the ground landlord either for an extension of the lease or for the purchase of the freehold are exorbitant, the hardship placed upon these people is certainly comparable with the hardship placed upon people to whose rescue the Minister was prepared to come when he issued the circular to which I have referred.
Can it be said that in relation to the ground landlord of the South Wales area, with wham we are mostly concerned today, as it has been said of landlords in the context to which I have referred, that
"there are swindlers in the market"?
We have heard statements in one direction and statements in another direction. I do not think an issue of that kind can be properly determined by exchanges in this House. I should like the Minister to indicate quite clearly and categorically that if he has evidence, or if he is satisfied, that ground landlords are abusing their present powers and are making exorbitant demands in negotiations for the extension of a lease or the purchase of a freehold, he would be prepared to use powers similar to those he proposed to use in relation to the landlords in London.
The powers he had in mind in relation to landlords in London were those under the Housing Act, 1957. I concede readily that the powers under Sections 91 to 96 of that Act are probably not appropriate for use in this connection, but if they are not, then nothing would be easier than for the Minister to acquire powers for the purpose. I should like the Minister to say categorically to these ground landlords in South Wales that if they do not behave in a reasonable and fair manner towards their ground lessees he will invoke powers similar to those which
448
he has threatened to invoke in relation to landlords in London.
What the Minister had in mind—he will correct me if I am wrong—was that the powers under the Housing Act, 1957, should be exercised by the local authority and that when applications for compulsory purchase were submitted to him for approval in those circumstances, he would consider them sympathetically. Let the Minister indicate that he is prepared to take precisely the same attitude and to exercise precisely the same powers in relation to ground landlords who behave unfairly and unreasonably towards their tenants. If the local authorities in Wales felt that an injustice was being done in this direction they would not hesitate to act. If they did not act, at least the tenant would have one additional body about which to complain.
We have had evidence in the last two speeches of a large number of ground landlords who have behaved properly, but we have heard allegations that a number are not behaving properly. Just as the issue of Circular 45/60 had a salutary effect, so a categorical statement by the Minister on the lines which I have indicated might do a great deal to help in this direction. If it did not have a salutary effect, I should support the introduction of measures to enable the Minister to carry out the powers which I have indicated.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Rees: I am glad to have the opportunity to join in the debate because I do not want it to be felt that the City of Cardiff is the only part of Wales which has this problem. I represent part of the County Borough of Swansea, and I have found that many of my constituents occupy their homes on leasehold tenure. They would be most upset if they thought that I had not managed to take part in the debate, as so often happens in the House.
I want to take part in the debate, too, because I shall deal with the problem from a rather wider experience as a practising chartered auctioneer in South Wales, for I come across both sides of the argument, acting on behalf of landlords and on behalf of tenants. First, I must confess that I have a personal interest in it, being a part beneficiary of some leasehold reversions on long terms, but it is interesting to note that the people

449
holding those leaseholds are not very anxious to purchase the freeholds, although they have been offered to them.
There is no doubt that this is a Welsh problem, as we have quite clearly heard today. I was disappointed to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in his reply, deal with it as a legal matter. I have read the Jenkins Committee's Report. Ten years ago there was a lot to commend all that it said and all the points which were raised. But the fundamental difference between Wales, or rather South Wales, and the rest of the country is that the purchaser has no option but to take a leasehold interest. Cardiff was originally developed by three families, the Plymouths, the Butes and the Tredegars. Swansea was developed by several others.
A point which some people forget, but which the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) pointed out, is that the system is developing further at the moment because the new towns have been developed on the same basis. The County Borough of Swansea is one of the biggest freeholders in the area. This system is spreading. Recently we heard that the Labour Party's policy solution of the problem of the high price of land was to extend the leasehold system.
If we are to tackle this problem, therefore, we should tackle it not only at the fag-end of the lease but also at the other end, the start of the lease. At the beginning of my remarks, which must be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak, I should like to deal with the beginning of the lease, because one of the objections which is put forward to leasehold reform is the sanctity of contract. If we dealt with the problem of the contract at the beginning, there would be no question of sanctity of contract. I should like to see a certain measure of reform whereby when a building and ground lease of less than 999 years is being entered into for the construction of a property on a plot of land, the ground landlord must build into the contract a right to purchase the freehold at some stage in the early part of the lease.
The ground landlord who is entering into that lease at that stage has a right of reversion in 100 years' time, and in view of the changes in planning and planning control, nobody will convince
450
me that his interest in redevelopment, which is the argument so often put forward for keeping a freehold estate in existence, is very serious. He is interested in his security and in his investment. He has achieved his planning aim. His positive planning aim at that stage has been achieved, because he has brought about development of the land. If the agitators of 100 years ago had thought about doing this, we should probably not be debating this problem today. This condition has been put into leases voluntarily. Many of my professional colleagues are advising their clients in South Wales to do it, and I know of four or five estates in my constituency being developed on this basis.
The trouble arises when we come to the fag-end of the lease. I have had clients in my office—and I am sure that other hon. Members have had this experience—to whom I have explained that they were buying a wasting asset with perhaps seventy years to go, and they have said, "It will see my life out, so why should I worry?" They do not begin to worry until the lease is down to forty, thirty or twenty years. That is when the trouble arises.
Another trouble which arises, and which has been running throughout the debate, is that of the misnomer "ground lease", because a layman cannot get it into his head—and I can understand this—that the building and the ground cannot be severed and that he is paying a rent for the building which is standing on the ground. He has paid a premium at the beginning of the lease for building that building. Nevertheless, it reverts to the landlord. If we could overcome that problem we might be able to see the position in better perspective.
When the lease has only thirty years or twenty-five years to go, or some such term, it becomes an unmortgageable asset. My right hon. and learned Friend rightly pointed to the benefit which will accrue from the 1954 Act of security of tenure, bat that is useless to the man who has to move away to other work, perhaps because there is no employment in the district or because he has promotion and has to sell his house and leave. If there are thirty years to go on the lease, it is a valuable asset, but his potential purchaser cannot obtain a

451
mortgage and cannot pay the full capital value. This is a man who needs a certain amount of help. I know that it will be said that he does not want to buy this interest until he is selling the house, and that may well be so, but if we genuinely wish to help people to move into jobs we must do something in the public interest to help them at that point with their houses.
Much has been said in one form or another about the oppressive and wicked prices which has been asked. Although I am very much in support of the Motion, I think that if some of the words which have beep spoken are read people will imagine that if this legislation is introduced they will get their freeholds for nothing. They will not. I should like to quote from the mathematical tables which have been referred to earlier. I should like to take a fair and straightforward basis, using a 5 per cent. table, and indicate the change in the capital value of the reversionary interest as the years disappear.
Let us assume that the house has a capital value of £2,000. If the freehold is bought with 25 years unexpired, the probable value would be about £590. I am not giving this as a professional valuation; it is an indication of a mathematical figure. If, however, one waits until only 18 years are left—in other words, seven years have passed—the figure is up to £839. At that stage, the asset is wasting rapidly.
Constituents have told me that they will not buy the ground rent because the price is iniquitous. As a valuer—putting on my other hat, not charging them a fee for it—I have worked out the figures, which have been very fair. When I explain to my constituents, they reply that their ancestors before them had paid the ground rent through the years and it has been paid for over and over again. That is the way they look at it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] It is not true. [Interruption.] Very well. If somebody puts £100 in the Post Office Savings Bank and leaves it there for 50 years, at the end of that time he has £125 in interest from the Post Office, but he still wants his £100 back. What one has paid in ground rent is an interest on the capital investment. What people must realise and must get clearly into their heads and not forget is that if they
452
get leasehold reform, of which I am in favour—I am very much behind it—they need not imagine that it will be at give-away prices.
Sir Lynn Ungoed Thomas: The point that the hon. Member makes about it being interest on capital is perfectly valid; but the interest is on the ground. The house has been built by the tenant or his predecessor in title. The crux of the problem is whether the landlord should have the benefit of the house which the tenant has built or whether the tenant should have the benefit of it. That is a problem which the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), in a speech which appeared to be extremely brave, did not face.
Mr. Rees: I take the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but politics are the achievement of the practical. Over the years, trusts funds, pension funds and all sorts of funds have been invested in long-term leaseholds with a freehold reversion. If, overnight, hon. Members opposite want to destroy that fundamental principle, on which people have bought and invested trust funds, they will not achieve their aim. We must accept the situation that that has been the basis of tenure all along.
I am sorry that I did not hear a more hopeful and encouraging reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I am in an embarrassing position tonight, to put it mildly. I cannot vote against the Motion. I shall have to abstain from voting unless I find more encouragement coming from the Government.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Box: On a point of order. Is there any possibility, Mr. Speaker, of extending the time of this debate? It is obvious that other Members, including myself, wish to speak. We have had an intervention from one English hon. Member for 35 minutes. I am faced with the situation that both of my Socialist colleagues from the Cardiff constituencies will have spoken in the debate, but, apparently, I shall not be able to do so.
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, that is not within my control. It is not by the provision of any order

453
of the House that the debate stops at any fixed hour before 10 o'clock.
Mr. James Griffiths: May I help, Mr. Speaker? This is a Welsh day, at the disposal of the Opposition. We have arranged that there should be two debates. We want reasonable time for the following debate, but the subject of this first debate is a big and vital one. Speaking for myself and, I think, many hon. Members who would like to take part in the second debate, we would not keep rigidly to the time limit of 7 o'clock for the first debate to finish, but we would hope that reasonable time may be given to the second debate.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
6.24 p.m.
Mr. John Morris: It will take only a few minutes to say what I intended to say. Today, we have heard some fantastic arguments from the Attorney-General, which I will leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to answer. The right hon. Gentleman tried to justify the 1954 Act. The weaknesses of that Act are self-evident. The lessee has been given the right to remain, but only as a statutory tenant. His right is therefore severely qualified. If the landlord wishes to develop the property, as the Attorney-General conceded, the lessee has no security of tenure. Again, if the landlord wishes to obtain possession of the property on grounds provided by the Rent Act, he can get possession and, therefore, the security of tenure is fictitious.
Secondly, although the premises will never be his, the new tenant will still be responsible for the whole cost of dilapidations. Therefore, in addition to paying the increased rent that he will have to pay, he will also have to pay the value of the dilapidations on the property.
Thirdly, the rent which he has to pay is the market rent. Therefore, there is very little in the 1954 Act. It has given some security of tenure to the tenant, but close examination shows that it is a fictitious security of tenure.
In my constituency, the Church in Wales is the holder of ground reversions. In the past few months, the Church has taken advantage of a clause
454
in its leases to the great detriment of my constituents. I am sorry to have to say this about the Church in Wales, but in this respect it has behaved badly. There is a clause in the leases enabling the lessor to specify the company with whom the lessee must insure the property. This clause has been in abeyance for years, but in the last few months the Church in Wales has insisted upon using it. One of the reasons may well be that somebody is able to get commission in respect of the insurances.
This matter has caused great annoyance in my constituency. The people are annoyed, especially when they realise that the new insurances must be effected with an ecclesiastical insurance company. At this late juncture, I ask the Church in Wales to have regard to the feelings of my constituents. I am sorry to have to mention the name of the Church in Wales, but the Church, too, should behave as a reasonable landlord, and although a clause such as I have described is contained in the leases, there is no need to insist upon its application when it has not been insisted upon in the past for a great many years.
Innumerable cases have been quoted this afternoon, and I have had masses of cases myself. I have obtained some facts and figures regarding the Aberystwyth Corporation, which holds a number of ground reversions. I am told that the value of the leasehold ground in the borough is almost £½ million. The total income which the borough receives is £6,543 a year, or a return on the capital of 1·3 per cent. After deducting the cost of administration of ·7 per cent., there remains a return to the borough of ·6 per cent. I ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, when considering local government finances, to consider seriously whether it would not be better for this local authority—and other local authorities which hold reversions of this nature—to sell the £½ million worth which it now possesses instead of borrowing money at 6 per cent. interest for other purposes for which it needs money.
The finance corporations who own reversions are, in many instances, people who till not, who sow not, but who make sure that they reap every time when the leases fall in.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Donald Box: It is perfectly obvious that the time for this debate is inadequate and that the Motion is in effect a Motion of censure of the Government. As Motions of censure go, it is about the mildest form of censure which I have ever read. The only conclusion which I can draw from that is that the Front Bench opposite has not got its heart and soul in the matter, or has such a guilt complex at its own lack of activity that it is not wholly behind the Motion. I have examined the records of the Socialist Party and, although I obviously have to curtail much of what I have to say in this respect, I must say that even in its latest policy document, which was issued only a week or so ago, the Labour Party made practically no reference to this matter other than to say:
"We must also reform leasehold law to enable leaseholders with long leases to buy their own homes."
There is no question about when, where, or on what terms.
It is true that, in a thinly disguised plan for land nationalisation, the Labour Party intends to acquire all freehold building land in the country, but it makes no reference to this leasehold problem. It is no wonder that one searches in vain for a solution to the problem. It is no wonder that The Times recently described this policy statement as a deceptively simple solution to an exceedingly complex problem.
On the other hand, I cannot claim that my own Front Bench has been conspicuous by its action over the last eleven years. Admittedly the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, gave some security of tenure to leaseholders to become statutory tenants, at the current market rents, on the expiration of their leases. I know that some people consider that that has largely taken the sting out of the leasehold system; but, although it appears to offer a crumb of comfort to leaseholders, it is really merely one more way of putting off the day when we tackle this thorny problem.
Because this is an issue which is at present confined to South Wales, some parts of London and a few towns in the north of England, we Members who represent constituencies in South Wales have great difficulty about convincing our colleagues not faced with the prob-
456
lem of the growing danger created by the present great expansion of the leasehold system. Their attitude, perhaps understandably, is rather like that of a person signing a 99-year lease who, on being told that at the end he will have to hand over his property so that the value accrues to the landlord, says, "That will not bother me". The end of these leases will not bother any hon. Members now present, but I make the confident forecast that it will become a very perplexing problem for future generations, unless we do something to tackle the situation now.
I am strongly opposed to the leasehold system in its present form, although I realise that there are certain fundamental objections to stopping it now. The chief is the dire shortage of land. In its present form, it is a deceptively cheap and convenient way of selling houses on the "never-never"—never paid for, never owned—yet guaranteed to create friction between landlords and the leaseholder in the end.
The whole system requires a thorough review and a determined effort to adjust the position by new legislation. Neither the Government nor the Opposition have much on which to congratulate themselves in this respect. There is far too much evidence of prevarication, putting off the evil day, and leaving matters for someone else to clear up in the future. I hope that even at this late stage my right hon. Friend will initiate an up-to-date review of the whole leasehold system. If he did so, he would not only give great service to Wales, but would earn for himself the eternal gratitude of the Welsh people.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I will scrap the speech I intended to make, as we have to vote at ten o'clock.—[Interruption.]—I mean seven o'clock. I wish that it were at ten o'clock and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and other Members do, because they would then have been able to speak.
Let me get the record straight for the benefit of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box). Since 1951, the Labour Party has been committed to leasehold enfranchisement in every policy document and in every statement and election manifesto. It has been made clear, and I reaffirm it now, that in the event of the

457
present Government not legislating, a Labour Government, if returned at the next election, will certainly legislate in order to provide leasehold enfranchisement.
The hon. Member complained that "Signpost for the Sixties" did not lay down a detailed plan. I have never yet known a signpost which conveyed a detailed sketch of the whole of the surrounding countryside. It is a declaration of intention and the hon. Member should not seek to escape from the embarrassment of his own Government by trying to foist on us responsibility for the last ten years, which have been entirely in the control of his own party.
I do not wish to spend a lot of time on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), because the House showed its distaste for his speech, a distaste emphasised by the fact that we see the hon. and learned Member here only when this subject is discussed. I do not know what his electors think about him, and perhaps they just do not know. I have looked up his record of appearances in the House and of his speeches. I do not know where he goes, but, according to the record, he has asked one Written Question this year, while last year there were no entries in the Index of HANSARD and the year before he made one constituency speech on the Adjournment. He must not take it amiss if when he arrives, those of my hon. Friends who do not know him wonder who he is and are disgusted with his contribution.
It is true that there are good ground landlords, but I want to make a distinction. I say to the two directors sitting opposite that a great deal of criticism lies against their company and they should know it. I have had much experience—all my hon. Friends share it—of dealing with ground landlords who have offered to sell their freeholds on reasonable terms, but when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) says that it is his company's policy to sell its freeholds, I can only say that he is given the lie by every reputable solicitor in Cardiff.
Mr. Aitken Mr. Aitken indicated dissent.
Mr. Callaghan: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head, because I am stating the views of solicitors who are
458
handling these matters every day. I have one letter from a well-known solicitor, whose name I do not propose to advertise, who says:
"I have found most estates are prepared, upon request, to sell the freehold, except Western Ground Rents Limited, who either refuse to sell, or ask for a large sum of money."
Mr. Aitken: I call the attention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to the official statement by the chairman of the company, in which he said that for a number of years the company had been perfectly willing to sell a freehold or renew a lease, except in cases where it was obviously in the interests of good estate management that it should not do so.
Mr. Callaghan: And the complaint made is that the company fixes ridiculously high prices so that it is not making a genuine offer. That is our experience. Of course the hon. Member says that the figure is based on the valuation tables and the reversionary rights, but who fixes the value of the property from which a discount is made? It is Western Ground Rents Limited. It fixes the capital value of the property. The complaints now being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and others about the property in Cathedral Road is that it is now going at an extortionate price by comparison with what it was ten years ago. It is that company which is saying what this property is worth and then making a discount from its valuation tables, so that it is able to say that it is working it all out mathematically.
I put this to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Of course, the value of property in Cathedral Road has been going up. It is near the centre of a city which is developing fast. But has Western Ground Rents developed it? What has that company put into Cardiff? And, apart from asking what contribution Western Ground Rents has made to Cardiff, have those hon. Members ever been there? The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would not even know his way around Grangetown or Roath. I am talking about absentee landlords of the worst order. They are a group of financiers, hired lawyers and actuaries who know nothing about the city but who control our lifeblood and destinies.

459
This subject causes great emotion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand the bitterness and hatred that is felt for Western Ground Rents in Cardiff. My hon. Friends have said that this is a much wider problem and, of course, it is and I am sorry that, because of the time factor, more of my hon. Friends have not been able to take part in the debate.
Western Ground Rents Ltd. has done much to damnify the leasehold system, which the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) defended. It did it because of the financial return it is getting, and for no other reason. In this connection, I will read what the firm's distribution of dividends has been over the last few years—all made out of people's homes. In 1951–52 it paid a dividend of 50 per cent. In 1952–53 it paid a dividend again of 50 per cent. For 1953–54, 1954–55 and 1955–56 there was a dividend of only a beggarly 25 per cent. In 1956–57 it made a capital distribution of two shares for every one share held by its shareholders. The company therefore paid a dividend whose equivalent is 60 per cent. In 1957 it paid a dividend whose equivalent is 75 per cent. and in 1958 it paid a dividend whose equivalent is 75 per cent.
In three years a shareholder could get his capital back more than twice, yet those hon. Members opposite have the impudence to come to this House and claim that they have a right to the capital value of Cardiff, to which they have not contributed a single penny since they first laid down the land.
Mr. Aitken Mr. Aitken rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way.
Mr. Aitken: What the hon. Gentleman says is untrue.
Mr. Callaghan: It is not.
Mr. Aitken: Give way.
Mr. Callaghan: No. The figures I have given are from the Stock Exchange records and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak he can make his own speech. In fact, I make this offer to the hon. Gentleman. He can come to Cardiff and have a public meeting and debate the issue there. We will fill the Tory hall five times over with his tenants.
Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.
Mr. Callaghan: I am not afraid to give way to the hon. Gentleman or to anyone else. I have not been an undiluted admirer of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) but this afternoon he has spoken like a real man. I agree with every word of his speech and I congratulate him on it, as I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on his contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams) on his moving speech.
Mr. Aitken: Give way. The hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.
Mr. Callaghan: That is not true. I have been in this House far sixteen years and hon. Members can judge whether or not I am afraid to give way.
Mr. J. Foster Mr. J. Foster rose—
Mr. Callaghan: No.
Mr. Box Mr. Box rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), because the hon. Gentleman was given time to speak and he used it merely to make an attack on the Labour Party.
This is an issue which has aroused intense emotion. I warn the Government that if they do not accept this Motion—and already some hon. Members opposite intend to vote against the Government—and unless they are prepared to act, this agitation will continue. It is bound to go on until there is a solution to the problem. The Land Development Commission, which the Labour Party proposes should be established, will be one means—and I do not have time to develop this in detail—of ending this monopoly.
When that Commission has acquired land, and the houses are built upon it, it will be possible and a proper matter of policy to sell the freehold of those houses back to those who are occupying that land. That is the only way, in many parts of Wales, that one will be able to get land at a reasonable price. I warn the Minister that resentment in South Wales is growing. It is founded on emotion that cannot be swept aside.

461
I will close my remarks with a little ditty that was heard at the weekend when the Home Secretary made a speech in order to try to overcome what the Prime Minister told us about our never having had it so good. I have taken the liberty of adding to it and, no doubt, my hon. Friends could add to it further. This is what the Home Secretary told us:
"Nations earn their right to rise
Through service and through sacrifice."
I have taken the liberty of adding the following:
"But Western Ground Rents say, 'This is rot,
You build the house, we take the lot;
Yours is the right, whilst our profits rise
To serve us and to sacrifice'."
6.47 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I appreciate that this debate is confined to half a day and that other hon. Members still wish to speak, but I know that it is the desire of the Opposition to raise another subject following this debate.
This has been an interesting debate and the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) were two of the most thoughtful contributions that I have heard in a number of debates to which I have listened or in which I have taken part on the subject of leasehold over a number of years past.
It is a subject with which I am not unfamiliar from my constituency point of view. I think the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams) said that leasehold would be a much more famous topic if it were more widely spread. It happens that my constituency of Hampstead is largely subject to ground leases. I have represented that constituency for eleven years, and it is a subject on which hardly any of my constituents write to me. What the cause of that is I can only guess. I think it is partly because the ground landlords are very wise in handling their lessees and have pursued an enlightened policy. I think it is also because remarkably few people in Hampstead are so gullible or stupid as to imagine that they have acquired the freehold interest when they have actually acquired the leasehold.
Mrs. Eirene White: Does not the Minister realise that in Hampstead there is also a considerable number of freeholds? As a freeholder myself in Hampstead I know that in Hampstead one has a choice that one does not have in South Wales.
Mr. Brooke: There are all these considerations, but the fact is—and I did not think that there was any dispute about this—that the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1954 seems to be acting without giving any serious or widespread dissatisfaction, other than in South Wales.
Therefore, one of the matters for hon. Members to examine—or for examination by anyone interested in this subject—is what, if any, are the bad features in South Wales which give rise to dissatisfaction. The hon. Member for Abertillery was frank in his speech. He said, in effect, that if one had a leasehold interest one could fairly imagine that it was a freehold interest and complained that one's home was being snatched if one was not able to retain that interest beyond the expiry of the lease. That is perfectly frank, but it makes nonsense of all contracts.
I am aware that over the years a number of people in various places have had that totally mistaken idea. No one in this House holds it, I am sure. All hon. Members realise the difference. The argument here is whether the leasehold system should continue. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, West who made interesting suggestions about possible changes in the law, as I understood his speech, so as to insist on certain provisions being included in future long leases that are granted.
The question, in fact, is whether there is now to be some form of leasehold enfranchisement or some other kind of interference by compulsion imposed by Parliament on contracts that have been entered into and have been running for a number of years. That is a subject which the Jenkins Committee examined a number of years ago and by a large majority that Committee—which was a very strong one—came to the conclusion that it would not be justifiable to grant powers of compulsory purchase to a private citizen.
As I understand it, what this Motion implies is that the Government should

463
introduce forthwith legislation which will put powers of compulsory purchase into the hands of certain citizens, to wit occupying lessees. The Motion confines it to occupying lessees although, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General pointed out, at once one would risk doing injustice if one were to follow this advice as between the occupying lessee and the non-occupying lessee. A situation might be created in which Mr. Jones, living in one house, and who is the occupier, is entitled to exercise compulsory purchase rights against the ground landlord and obtain it at a figure which I suspect the Opposition wants to be rather below the market value; whereas Mr. Williams, who is the lessee of the house next door, because he is not living there, would have no such right. If Mr. Jones can then sell his property, having compulsorily acquired it, at a profit to somebody else, while Mr. Williams cannot do so, obviously there is going to be a renewed feeling of injustice.
All I am putting to the Opposition is that this proposal of theirs, if it were adopted, would not eliminate feelings of injustice as between one person and another.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It has been done in Scotland.
Mr. Brooke: I am speaking of Wales because the Motion concerns Wales.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not the Minister realise that the action which his own Government have taken with regard to leaseholds in Scotland makes nonsense of his objection to the Motion which is before the House?
Mr. Brooke: I am addressing myself to the terms of the Motion which proposes to give certain powers of compulsory purchase to occupying lessees in Wales. I am pointing out what would be the consequences of that.
The Motion further refers to the hardships caused in Wales by the operation of the current leasehold system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General asked to be given specific instances of that. He said that he had been making inquiries but had not come across
464
or gained information of cases where the ground landlords had been appearing to demand for the freehold reversion a figure that was, in fact, higher than its market value.
Equally, I have been seeking to gain information and I have not got from the papers, from inquiries that I have made or from this debate any clear examples of hardship caused. Let me quote one or two that were mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) spoke of somebody being offered a house in Newport with thirty-one years unexpired for £500. I cannot tell whether it is worth £500 or not, but I know that almost anybody in my constituency would snap up a house with thirty-one years unexpired for £500. Obviously, of course, it depends on the condition of the house.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) alleged that there was severe hardship in the case of an ex-policeman who had been paying 1s. a week in respect of his house and was now, on the expiry of the lease or towards the end of it, told that in future he would have to pay 11s. 7d. a week. In most parts of England and Wales 11s. 7d. a week does not sound an extortionate rent. The responsibility is on the hon. Member to try to convince the House that 11s. 7d. is a rent that is likely to cause hardship to the person who has been living in the house. If, indeed, it is a ground rent it is not clear why the 1s. a week is not continuing and why this person, if he feels that a hardship is being imposed upon him, is not seeking the protection of the 1954 Act.
The hon. Member for Abertillery spoke of a widow who was occupying a house with eleven years unexpired and who was being asked £185 for the house. Again it was not clear where the hardship is. If the lease is eleven years unexpired she is entitled to live in that house for a further eleven years, and at the end of that period she can claim to continue to live there because the 1954 Act guarantees her security of tenure at a rent which, if it cannot be agreed with the landlord, will be fixed by the court. Where is the hardship there?
Mr. LI. Williams: The Minister has misstated the position. The £185 was not for the house; it was for the ground rent.
Mr. Brooke: If she had eleven years unexpired she would be able to continue living there for another eleven years, and at the end of the eleven years she could claim the protection of the 1954 Act.
The truth is that for a great many people the whole topic of leasehold tenure is a mystery, and I am bound to say that that is in part due to a number of ground landlords being quite content that it shall remain a mystery. One of the facts that have been brought home to me is that in Wales, as elsewhere, these troubles seem to arise on certain estates and not on others. I can only think that the explanation of that is that certain ground landlords are far more successful, by publicity or public relations or otherwise, in letting everybody know what their policy is. I would certainly commend to all ground landlords in Wales and elsewhere, because this subject is one of common public interest, that they should not make it so difficult as some do at present for people to discover what, in fact, their policy is as regards their willingness either to extend the lease or to dispose of the freehold reversion, and on what terms.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) asked me whether I would consider taking similar action with regard to ground landlords as I took last August in relation to certain landlords in London. But, of course, the cases are not on a par. I was taking action against people who I feared were going to render their tenants homeless, but the occupying lessee cannot be rendered homeless. He is protected by the 1954 Act. The action which I took in that case would not be applicable or of value in the case which we are discussing today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry mentioned the difficulty of obtaining a mortgage for less than thirty-five years. That is a subject on which I would be very glad indeed to obtain further information. Clearly there is something unsatisfactory if a man needs to move away and yet cannot dispose of the remainder of his lease because nobody will give the incoming purchaser a mortgage since the lease is for less then thirty-five years. My impression is that
466
in 99 cases out of 100 if an approach is made to the ground landlord the matter can be settled. But if there are cases where a ground landlord is not prepared to help in any way and nobody else is, I shall be glad to hear of them.
There is another type of case which has not been mentioned today and which is of concern to me as Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is that where there are less than fifteen years unexpired it is difficult to apply for and obtain an improvement grant for a house. That, obviously, is of interest to me. I do not know. Again, cases of that kind have not come to my notice, but they may exist. If they do, I should like to hear about them.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made perfectly clear that the Labour Party's policy, if it came to power, would be to throw over the majority Report of the Jenkins Committee in regard to leasehold enfranchisement policy. Hon. and right hon. Members will find the argument in the majority Report more cogent and persuasive than, perhaps, they imagine. Is it true, as some hon. Members have argued, that the situation has altered since the Jenkins Report was presented? Again, if there is information of a specific kind which hon. Members wish to produce or can obtain from their constituencies, the Government are prepared to look at it. But the Government are not prepared to accept this Motion or to promise to set up another committee on such vague evidence as has so far been brought forward.
So far as we can ascertain, there is no specific evidence of hardship that would justify a fresh committee. The Government are very willing, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, to examine any information on these matters which is put into our hands, but, in our view, the Motion is not sufficiently supported by hard facts. I have explained that were it to become Government policy the proposal in the Motion would cause injustice between man and man and would give compulsory powers to private individuals, which is something which this House should be very reluctant to do. On all those grounds, I invite the House to reject the Motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 245.

Division No. 249.]

AYES

[7.2 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Ainsley, William

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Peart, Frederick

Awbery, Stan

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Pentland, Norman

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hilton, A. V.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Houghton, Douglas

Prentice, R. E.

Bence, Cyril

Hoy, James H.

Probert, Arthur

Blyton, William

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pursey, Cmdr, Harry

Boardman, H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Randall, Harry

Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rankin, John

Bowles, Frank

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Rhodes, H.

Box, Donald

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Boyden, James

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Jeger, George

Ross, William

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Callaghan, James

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Chapman, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Skeffington, Arthur

Chetwynd, George

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Collick, Percy

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Small, William

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kelley, Richard

Sorensen, R. W.

Crosland, Anthony

Kenyon, Clifford

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

King, Dr. Horace

Steele, Thomas

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lawson, George

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stones, William

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Swain, Thomas

Deer, George

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Swingler, Stephen

Diamond, John

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Sylvester, George

Dodds, Norman

Lipton, Marcus

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Donnelly, Desmond

Loughlin, Charles

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

McCann, John

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Edelman, Maurice

MacColl, James

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

McInnes, James

Thornton, Ernest

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Evans, Albert

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Wainwright, Edwin

Finch, Harold

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

Warbey, William

Fletcher, Eric

Manuel, A. C.

Weitzman, David

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Forman, J. C.

Marsh, Richard

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mason, Roy

White, Mrs. Eirene

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mayhew, Christopher

Wigg, George

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Ginsburg, David

Moody, A. S.

Wilkins, W. A.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Morris, John

Willey, Frederick

Gourlay, Harry

Mort, D. L.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Gower, Raymond

Moyle, Arthur

Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

Grey, Charles

Mulley, Frederick

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Gunter, Ray

Oliver, G. H.

Woof, Robert

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Oram, A. E.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Halt, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Owen, Will

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Padley, W. E.

Hannan, William

Parkin, B. T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hayman, F. H.

Paton, John

Mr. Redhead and

Healey, Denis

Pavitt, Laurence

Mr. Ifor Davies.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bullard, Denys

Aitken, W. T.

Bidgood, John C.

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Allason, James

Biggs-Davison, John

Burden, F. A.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Atkins, Humphrey

Bishop, F. P.

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Balniel, Lord

Black, Sir Cyril

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Barber, Anthony

Bourne-Arton, A.

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Barlow, Sir John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Cary, Sir Robert

Barter, John

Boyle, Sir Edward

Channon, H. P. G.

Batsford, Brian

Braine, Bernard

Chataway, Christopher

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Bell, Ronald

Bryan, Paul

Cleaver, Leonard

Berkeley, Humphry

Buck, Antony

Cole, Norman

Cooper, A. E.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pitman, Sir James

Cordle, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Pitt, Miss Edith

Corfield, F. V.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pott, Peroivall

Costain, A. P.

Jackson, John

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Coulson, J. M.

James, David

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Jennings, J. O.

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Critchley, Julian

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Curran, Charles

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Pym, Francis

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Dance, James

Joseph, Sir Keith

Rawlinson, Peter

Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Doughty, Charles

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Ridsdale, Julian

Drayson, G. B.

Kershaw, Anthony

Rippon, Geoffrey

Duncan, Sir James

Kirk, Peter

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Eden, John

Kitson, Tlmothy

Robson Brown, Sir William

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Langford-Holt, J.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Leather, E. H. C.

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Errington, Sir Eric

Leavey, J. A.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Leburn, Gilmour

Sharples, Richard

Farr, John

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Shaw, M.

Fell, Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shepherd, William

Finlay, Graeme

Lilley, F. J. P.

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

Fisher, Nigel

Lindsay, Martin

Smithers, Peter

Foster, John

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Litchfield, Capt. John

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

Speir, Rupert

Freeth, Denzil

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Gammans, Lady

Longbottom, Charles

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Gardner, Edward

Longden, Gilbert

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Glover, Sir Douglas

Loveys, Walter H.

Storey, Sir Samuel

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Studholme, Sir Henry

Goodhart, Philip

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Summers, sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Goodhew, Victor

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Gough, Frederick

MacArthur, Ian

Tapsell, Peter

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

McLaren, Martin

Taylor, Edwin (Botton, E.)

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N, Ayrs.)

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Green, Alan

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Teeling, William

Grimston, Sir Robert

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Gurden, Harold

Maddan, Martin

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maitland, Sir John

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Turner, Colin

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Marshall, Douglas

Vane, W. M. F.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Marten, Neil

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hastings, Stephen

Montgomery, Fergus

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Hay, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Walder, David

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nabarro, Gerald

Walker, Peter

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Wall, Patrick

Hendry, Forbes

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Whitelaw, William

Hiley, Joseph

Noble, Michael

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Wise, A. R.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Hobson, John

Page. Graham (Crosby)

Woodhouse, C. M.

Holland, Philip

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Woodnutt, Mark

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Partridge, E.

Woollam, John

Hornby, R. P.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Worsley, Marcus

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Peel, John

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Percival, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Peyton, John

Mr. Gibson-Watt and

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pike, Miss Mervyn

ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, WALES (EMPLOYMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1960 (Command Paper No. 1293).—[Mr. Brooke.]
7.12 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I wish to begin by making a suggestion to the Minister for Welsh Affairs which would help hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and would provide in the next Session of Parliament further opportunities for us to discuss the matter which obviously aroused intense interest earlier in our proceedings today. I suggest that in the Annual Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1961 there should be included one short paragraph referring to leasehold reform. That would bring the matter within the purview of the Welsh Grand Committee and we should ask for two extra days to discuss it in the Welsh Grand Committee.
We thought that we had a duty to take at least part of the one day that we get on the Floor of the House to discuss Welsh matters to deal with the nagging problem, which still continues, of the intense difficulties being experienced by elderly and disabled workmen in Wales in securing employment. We know that the other problem is of very great importance, but this one has great human interest, and we therefore feel justified in directing the attention of the House to some of their problems. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour present, and we are gratified to know that he is to reply to the points that we raise.
The problem of disabled and elderly workers cannot be considered except in the context of the general employment situation. While we welcome the improvement which has taken place, there are still difficulties. I wish to raise a few points about the general employment situation and the figures of unemployment in Wales in the hope that the Minister will be able to comment on them.
At 20th June, 1961, the number of unemployed in Wales was 20,024. That
472
represented 2·1 per cent, of the number of registered workers at the unemployment exchanges in the Principality. This is twice the national average. Wales is one of the ten areas for which figures are provided on a regional basis. The figure of unemployment in Wales is the second highest of the ten. The only other area with a higher figure of unemployment than Wales is Scotland. I speak for the whole of Wales when I say that we shall not be content until our figure of unemployment is at least as low as the national average.
I have looked up the figures of registered unemployed during the month of June in each of the last four years. It would appear that we have become stuck. The figures are as follows: 1958, 20,156; 1959, 19,446; 1960, 21,653; and 1961, 20,024. I should like to ask the Minister what are the prospects in the coming year of being able to reduce this figure of about 20,000. Or is the Minister complacent and satisfied that, so long as the figure remains at 20,000, although it represents 2·1 per cent. of registered workers and twice the national unemployment average, it is a satisfactory figure for Wales?
I wish to say something based on a very interesting table which is to be found on page 23 of the June issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette. I ask the Minister to make this a regular feature, because it deals with something which deserves consideration. The figures of unemployment, particularly concerning the older industrial areas—Wales is one of them—are no longer a true reflection of the problem of unemployment in the Principality, or indeed in Scotland or in any of the older industrial areas. The table shows the shift of working population which is taking place and of which full account must be taken when we discuss these problems. It is a revealing table, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will look at it.
The table gives figures to describe what it calls the movement of population from one region to another—the inter-regional immigration of labour. It is extraordinarily interesting. The areas are grouped together and cover the great conurbations of London, Southern, South-Eastern and Eastern England. These are the areas to which industries and populations are

473
moving. In the year ending May, 1960, there was a not gain in registered workers in those regions of 36,000. In the other great conurbation to which there is a movement, particularly from Wales, Birmingham and the Midlands, there was a net gain of 7,000.
Then we come to the other areas. In Scotland there was a net loss of 16,000 registered workers in one year. For a country like Scotland that is a very big loss. In the North and North-West, the old industrial areas of Lancashire, Northumberland and Cumberland, there was a net loss of 13,000. In Wales there was a net loss of 4,000. The figure of 20,000 unemployed in Wales does not reveal the true situation. It is 20,000 plus the net loss of 4,000. This is going on every year. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government do not think that the distribution of industries is by any means solved.
We are confronted with a great technological revolution. We welcome the promise of the new industrial revolution. None of us who travels these days, as so many of us do—and as I shall be doing again tomorrow, from the Severn to the Tawe, along the main line—and sees these giant plants going up can but feel a thrill of promise, particularly when we remember the bad old days.
There are, however, two facts about these developments to which I want to call attention. First, what disturbs me in this development and in what I see happening in Wales is that it is all going to the coast. I have said this before and I make no apology for repeating it in the presence of the Minister for Welsh Affairs. If in twenty years' time the bulk of the population of Wales lives on the coast, with every respect to Cardiff and even more to Llanelly, and if as a consequence the valleys become dormitories, something very precious will have been lost to us.
The other aspect which is relevant to the problem of the elderly and the disabled is that we are dealing with the problem of those who, in the main, remain in the valleys. The new works are far away. For the young and for the able-bodied, it is easy to travel ten or twenty miles in the morning and back in the evening, but for the elderly and the disabled, this adds to their difficulties and to their problem. Whereas, therefore,
474
these new develepments bring promise to the young, they add to the grievance of the old and the disabled. They see all this new promise coming, but it is not for them.
I will be as short as I can because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak and have important contributions to make. I come now to the problem of the elderly in Wales. I am sorry to bother the House again with statistics, but they are essential to an understanding of the problem. Table 27 on page 26 of the Digest of Welsh Statistics gives for December, 1951, an age distribution related to duration of unemployment of registered workers in Wales and Monmouthshire. I will give a fair summary which illustrates the problem of the difficulty of the elderly to get work.
Of those under 20 years of age who were unemployed in December, 1951, 1 in 20 had been unemployed for more than a year. Of those in the 20 to 40 age range, 1 in 6 had been unemployed for over a year. Between the ages of 40 and 55, 1 in 3 had been unemployed for over a year, whilst for those over the age of 55 the proportion was one-half. This clearly reveals how very difficult it is for the elderly people to secure work.
Let me make a few suggestions. I will take examples from merely one industry, steel and tinplate. During the last few years there has been a tremendous revolution in Wales. At one time there were 400 mills employing 24,000 workmen. Now we have Margam and Trostre, and shortly we shall have Llanwern. I have already spoken about the promise of these developments, but let us look at the other side of the picture.
There are the victims of technological change. There are the men who have learnt their craft, and a very skilled craft it was. In the old tinplate industry, there were the rollermen, the furnacemen, the shearers and the rest. They are fine men. It is not my industry, but I have lived with these men. Members of my family have worked in the industry. It was the only other industry apart from the pits.
Suddenly, by technological development, not only do those men lose their jobs, but their craft becomes meaningless and at the age of 45 or 50 they are out

475
of work. The nation needs them. They are the salt of the earth. They are the owner-occupiers of whom we have been speaking earlier this evening. They are fine citizens. Therefore, I ask the Minister during the next twelve months of his administration, if he is still in office and has not been swallowed by the Common Market or something like that, to make a special study of this problem, which is of tremendous importance. We ought to concentrate upon it.
I am sure that the Minister and the House will agree with me that to say to a man at the age of 45 that because of these technological changes, the shift of industry or something like that, there is nothing for him except for the rest of his life to stay there idle, unwanted and forgotten until he reaches the age of 65 and goes on pension, represents a terrifying waste of time and human material. The nation badly needs these people. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and his staff will concentrate upon the problem of helping them.
I venture to make an appeal to the old firms, who owe a great deal to Wales, who are building new plants. I hope that the owners of all the new plants which we see being erected by the old firms in the steel industry and the rest will accept fully their obligation to the men who have been put out of work by technological change. They owe a great deal to these men. It was they who built up the industry. I shall not mention the names of companies; we all know them. These are the men who made them. I hope that none of the new works will set age limits which bar these men. I do not say that they do, but sometimes the men think that that is what happens—in other words, that it is quite all right for them to be employed in the old works at the age of 50, but not in the new places. Anybody who adopts that attitude is making a profound mistake.
These are splendid men, of fine character, great skill and adaptability. If the new industry coming to Wales employed them, it would soon know that it had some of the best workmen. If the firms find work for these men in the works which they are establishing, they will add balance, strength and poise to their labour force. They need not
476
imagine that they are doing a work of charity. They will be doing something which is in the best interest of themselves.
Mr. Abse: May I express the hope, which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend shares, that they follow the example of the publicly-owned steel industry—for example, Richard Thomas and Baldwins, which, in my constituency, is showing great initiative in seeing that all men employed in the old works and whose livelihood may be endangered by the coming of the new steel works at Llanwern are given adequate jobs or redundancy payments?
Mr. Griffiths: I welcome that. I hope they will all follow that example. My concern is that these people shall be found jobs.
I turn now to the disabled and I wish to quote some figures from the Ministry of Labour Gazette and from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. As as old worker in industry and a trade union official, I have known of this position for a long time. I have known it also as a former Minister of National Insurance, but I wonder whether the House realises it.
I have given figures about the shifting population and about the contracting areas and the developing areas in Wales. Our young people—and good luck to them—are being attracted and enticed to all the areas which have prospects, and they are leaving Wales and its problems behind them. In giving these figures, which speak for themselves, I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the contrast in population between Wales, with her 21- million people, and the great conurbations of London, with its countless millions, and the Midlands, with its several millions. The table from which I shall quote shows the number of workers absent from work because of industrial injury for the week of 16th May, 1961, although the figures for any week will be more or less the same.
In London and the South-East, the number of workers absent from work for that reason was 3,500; in the Eastern region, 3,000; and in the Southern region, 1,500. In that one week in those three regions, to which most of the new industries are going, 8,000 workers were absent from work because of industrial injury. That was out of a population

477
which I do not think I would be far wrong in putting at 20 million. To be on the safe side, however, let us call it 15 million. So in a population of 15 million there are 8,000 absent from work through industrial injuries. In Wales with a population of 2½ million there are absent from work through industrial injuries, 7,600.
There is the problem, the problem of the disabled in the land of slate quarries, coal mine, steel works and heavy industry. I am indeed very proud, if I may say so, of the fact that so much has been done under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which I had the honour of piloting through the House when I was a Minister, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing its operation in this House before long, for we have not had one for a long time; but there is still a great deal which can be clone to improve immensely the provisions under that Act. I was shocked the other day to learn that the service was so well off that we gave the employers 1d. off a week. I wish I were the Minister of that 1d. I should know what to do about it.
I am concerned about the disabled getting work. From my experience I can say that one of the essential things for the recovery as far as possible after injury of physical health, of self-respect, which is so important because of the influence which the mind has on the body's fitness, is for a disabled man to get a job as quickly as possible. A man's work forms a man's life, and if he is disabled from doing his work he feels, "I am finished because of this accident," and so it is intensely important that he should be got work as quickly as possible. I beg the Minister to give attention to that.
I understand that there are just over 42,000 — 42,979 — registered disabled workers in Wales of whom 5,034 are unemployed. We must find work for these men. It is extraordinarily important in these days, with the developing Health Service. There is a lot of work for them, a lot of work which they could do. These are men who could be found work and for whom work must be found quickly. I beg the Minister to take every possible step to find employment for them. Of course, there are the severely disabled for whom, I think, unfortunately, it may be impossible for us to
478
say that they will ever fit into the industrial pattern again and get jobs. We find that in December, 1960, in Wales there were 619 severely disabled persons out of work.
There is a matter for which the Minister is responsible and about which I ask him. When is he going to begin building more Remploy factories? I put this to him. There are 619 disabled people in Wales out of work. Of course, there are many others in the country as a whole, but I am speaking of Wales. One of the most imaginative pieces of real, constructive, social work we have done in this country was the establishment of Remploy factories to give severely disabled men work. Surely in this age, with all the resources which are available to us, we ought to be able to provide them with employment. Some time ago now some of my colleagues from Wales and I saw one of the Minister of Labour's predecessors, who told us that when the Government did reverse their policy and the Treasury agreed and there was money again to provide for the establishment of Remploy factories the first in the new programme would be built in Wales.
That was a promise. We look forward to its fulfilment. That is in the future, when the policy is changed. The policy is not changed at the moment. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to give us an undertaking that he will go into this matter at once and fight to get more Remploys, and that the Government will carry out the undertaking that the first factory in the new phase would be built in Wales so as to give some hope to these men.
I must say a word or two about one other thing. I am going to say a word or two about pneumoconiosis, because we cannot think about or discuss the disabled without thinking of pneumoconiosis. I will say one or two words of encouragement. I have been associated with this problem from the beginning. I remember the first time when in the mining industry we got pneumoconiosis as a scheduled disease. I rejoiced greatly, and I rejoice greatly at the progress which has been made and at the work which the doctors have done. The names of Dr. Fletcher and others who have worked in Llandough Hospital deserve a niche in the history of Wales.

479
They have done a good job for Wales, and I pay my full tribute to it, and also to the work done together by the Coal Board and the N.U.M.
For years there was argument about what caused pneumoconiosis, and in the end we came to the sensible conclusion that it was dust and that we must do everything we could to stop dust from doing this damage. There has been progress, but in the last ten years on the average each year 900 men have been certified as disabled to some extent and to varying degrees by pneumoconiosis in Wales.
Today we are more civilised about it than we were in the old 'thirties. In the old 'thirties we did not certify a man until he was half dead. Now we find it easier; we assess percentage of disablement, 5 per cent., 10 per cent.; and we keep men under survey and make perfectly sure that before they reach the crippling stage of disablement they are taken out of the pit. Many are still able to continue work in the coal mines in improved conditions free from dust, and for many years, and it is all to the good that they are able to continue and that for so long as they are kept under survey they can do a useful job of work at their own job and with their own mates, and so on.
Things are much better now, and I rejoice at that, as one who has lived with this problem. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to hear that step by step—sometimes too slow for me—we are getting on top of the problem, but if it is essential, as it is, for a disabled man to be provided with employment, believe me it is essential for a man who has got pneumoconiosis. I do not know what the figures are. Frankly, I have not got them. How many of the 900 disabled each year are still able to continue to work?
They come out from work, but they must be found work again. I use the word "must". It is an obligation we awe to them. Not only do we owe it to the men, but it is very important for the coal mining industry and very important for the nation. With over half a century of association with the coal mining industry I see for the first time in my life more men are leaving the pits than are going in. I leave hon. Members to pon-
480
der that. It is very serious. In spite of all our dreams of atomic energy and all the rest of it, for generations to come coal will be the lifeblood of this nation.
I tell the House what would be the best recruiting sergeant for the mines. I am sure that in my valley and in every other valley represented in this House now the best recruiting agent to induce young people to go into the mines would be, the seeing of every disabled man cared for and his family cared for, the seeing him retrained and seeing him in a job. The worst would be seeing him on the dole. Every man on the dole is a frightful deterrent to recruitment. In the interest of the nation it is imperative for the future of the coalmining industry, and that means the future of this country, that steps should be taken to establish Remploy factories and to encourage employers to employ more than the present 3½ per cent. of disabled. I am sure that they can employ more than that percentage especially in the new industries.
This is a nagging problem, and it is a very serious human problem. We welcome the improvement that has been made in this respect in Wales, but we shall not be satisfied until the progress made is as good as that made over the country as a whole. We have taken advantage of this half day of debate to present to the House and to the Government one of the problems that face us in Wales and to ask far action to deal with this the most human of the problems that confront the Principality.
7.41 p.m.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has quoted some very disturbing figures relating to disabled and elderly workers in the Principality. The figure which he gave of over 10,000 disabled out of a population of 2½ million compared with 8,000 in southern England was the one that caused us the greatest concern of all. There is a very high percentage of disabled workers in the anthracite areas of South-West Wales and I should like to put one or two points to the Minister of Labour, who I understand will wind up the debate, about the particular difficulties in securing employment as a result of the closure of old pits and the difficulties of transferring redundant

481
miners to the new pits at Cynheidre and Abernant.
In the revolution of improved techniques in which machinery is taking over the work of man it will be extremely difficult to absorb a great proportion of disabled and elderly workers. This will mean that there will be far fewer suitable light jobs for these workers and this in spite of the fact of the policy being pursued of securing that every able-bodied worker should go to work underground in order to create the maximum opportunities of employment for their less fortunate fellow-miners.
So far, it can be said that it has been possible to accommodate a good proportion of these workers, but with the next batch of transfers we shall be faced with a hard-core problem. There will be a difficult and delicate operation of transfer and adjustments and, it may be, even of recruitment as the Minister of Labour well knows, and it is very easy to disturb the rhythm of the operation.
In this connection I should like to refer to the extraordinary outburst of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) a day or two ago about the future of Cynheidre and Abernant which might create a crisis of confidence of some gravity. He questioned whether those pits were likely to reach a fraction of the target which had been suggested. This is a serious matter not only when we consider the question of obtaining the necessary labour for Cynheidre but also the employment of the older workers. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not now in his place. I gave him warning that I had one or two observations of a critical character to make about him. I do not know by what stretch of imagination the hon. Member could conceivably think that he was rendering a service by his rash and ill-advised intervention at this moment of all times.
Mr. Kellett, the divisional chairman for the South-Western Region of the Coal Board, said that anything that casts doubt on the projects makes the recruitment of workers more difficult. The hon. Member's defence was that he said what he did solely and simply as the guardian of the public purse. He said that when expenditure of millions of pounds is involved it is the duty of hon. Members to investigate when it appears that public
482
money is being wasted. That is an admirable principle to which we all subscribe both with regard to public and private industry. But I was a little surprised, however, to recall that when voices were raised on this side and even on the opposite side of the House against large subventions to private industry for projects which at any rate were questionable, we did not even have a well-modulated squeak from the guardian of the public purse, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North.
It is important, because this might create a crisis of confidence, to ascertain what people who really know the facts of the development of Cynheidre have had to say about it. Mr. Kellett doubted very much whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, North had enough knowledge of the industry to draw the right conclusions from the letter which he had received from the Chairman of the Coal Board, the noble Lord, Lord Robens, about the probable target at Cynheidre. Mr. Kellett said that he would draw entirely different conclusions from the information. He said:
"The first stage of development is a great technical achievement. Cyndheidre is a continuous process and is built for fifty years and not for a day. It has only just begun production and it could not be expected to reach its full production for at least two years."
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, who made this extraordinary pronouncement entirely off his own bat, did not consult Mr. Kellett or even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, who is a mining engineer. He visited Cynheidre a few weeks ago and spent five hours there, and he said:
"The time is coming to show that the vast investment in these new projects"—
that is Cynheidre and Abernant—
"is justified and I am satisfied that everything points to a gradually rising output."
I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North will have the grace and wisdom to retract these wild statements which he has made without any justification.
As we all acknowledge, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has said, Remploy factories have made a considerable contribution towards the solution of the difficult problem of the employment of the disabled in Wales. There is a Remploy factory in my constituency, at

483
Aberaman. It is almost fully manned and at the moment it employs fifty-five. There will be some vacancies there in two or three months.
I should like to raise two particular complaints that have been made to me about Remploy factories. One is that the type of work at the factories is very restricted in scope. As far as I can judge, and I have looked through the list of the products which they produce, these factories are mainly employed on furniture of various kinds and domestic equipment. I think that it would be an extremely good thing if the range of the products could be extended.
The second complaint is about the low rates of wages, and I should like to remind the House of one or two interesting figures which bear upon the matter. First, the value of output per man in 1951 was £56. It had risen in 1959–60 to £409. That is quite a remarkable increase. The second figure I should like to quote is that of the sales as a percentage of wages for the disabled and the cost of raw materials. In 1951–52 it was 55·4 per cent. It has risen in 1959–60 to 102·5 per cent.; in fact, it has very nearly doubled, which I think is a remarkable achievement. Now I come to wages. In 1951–52 average wages were £5 4s. 6d. In 1959–60 they had risen only to £7 10s. 4d. I do not think that anyone would say, particularly having regard to the figures I have just quoted, that that figure can be regarded—certainly not as adequate—but as a fair reward or return for the increased productivity.
While we have every reason to be grateful for the Remploy factories, we would ask the Minister to consider very seriously increasing the number in Wales. I should like to make one other point, but as I know very many other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall be brief. I wish to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said about the need for small industries in the valleys. There is a tendency at the moment for industrial development to concentrate on the coast, and, indeed, we may find that in a number of years the valleys will be deserted and derelict. Should that happen the loss to the community will be incalculable. I therefore ask the Government to consider establishing—and to
484
put far more drive into trying to secure—small, light industries for the small market towns and the larger villages, places like Llandovery and villages like Felindre. These small industries would employ the local population which, at the moment, has to go far afield in order to get work.
My right hon. Friend has reminded the House that the unemployment figures have gone down, and we welcome that wholeheartedly, but we still have a record of unemployment in Wales which is twice the national average and is still the second highest in the kingdom. The House well knows that the figures of unemployment in Wales do not actually reflect the true situation, because they do not take into account the school leavers, the miners who have left never to return—and this may well be one of the great problems which will have to be faced by the National Coal Board—and the steelworkers who left when the old steel mills were closed down in South-West Wales. We still have a very considerable problem to tackle if Wales is to be able to say in truth that she is enjoying full employment and that she is giving a full opportunity for her young people and is also giving a chance for the elderly and the disabled to continue in employment.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. W. G. Morgan: The subject which has been chosen for debate in the second half of this Welsh day is certainly one that affects the social conscience of everyone, whether in Wales or any other part of the country.
The question of the disabled is very properly referred to in pages 7 and 8 of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1960. I could have wished myself that rather more space had been devoted in that Report to this very important social subject. Despite the many excellent features that appear in the Report, I think that these twin problems could have been dealt with in rather more detail. However, they have been chosen for discussion today, and I am sure that all of us, inside and outside the House, will be a great deal better informed upon them at the end of this debate.
I agree with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that these questions cannot

485
be dissociated from the general question of unemployment, because the persons concerned, and I suppose the elderly in particular, are likely to be among the first to be adversely affected if the employment situation is unsatisfactory. I very much appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree with what has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) that there is no ground for complacency in the unemployment figures, though personally I welcome the fact that there has been a small but marked decrease in the unemployment figures. Between June of last year and June of this year there has been an appreciable decrease from just over 21,000 to just over 20,000, and there has been a percentage decrease in Wales and Monmouthshire during the same period from 2·3 per cent. to 2·1 per cent.—not very much, but certainly a move in the right direction.
That is not the whole picture, and we must be fair about it. I understand that the vacancy figures in Wales have improved very considerably during that period, from about 12,500 to 16,500. This is particularly important where the disabled are concerned because, fortunately, it is possible to find employment for many of these unfortunate people in ordinary industry. In this connection. I am very gratified to learn—and I understand it to be the case—that it is possible to settle quite a proportion of the Section 2 disabled persons in ordinary jobs, not merely in sheltered employment, and this is a tribute at once to the efforts of the officials of the Ministry and to the co-operation of employers.
I hesitate very much to query any figures put before the House by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, but I understand that during the last ten years—from May, 1951, to May, 1961—the number of registered disabled persons who were unemployed in Wales has very nearly been halved—from upwards of 8,000 to little more than 4,500. I understand further that there has been a significant improvement during the last year. It may be that we are not considering quite the same figures, but I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to deal with this important point when he speaks at the end of the debate.
I should like to turn briefly to the work that has been done and is still
486
being done in Wales by the Remploy and Grenfell factories, which are briefly referred to in the Report. I join in the tributes that have been paid to the work done by the Remploy factories by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen, and, to a great extent, I would associate myself with some criticisms she has made.
It is hoped that Remploy, with a continued improvement in its trading, will find that its resources will enable it to make a progressive increase in the number of disabled persons employed. It is satisfactory to know that there are thirteen factories in Wales. Twelve out of the thirteen are in South Wales, and because of the disparity in population one cannot make too much complaint about that from the North. There is another significant factor which should be borne in mind when any criticism is made about the failure to establish further factories in Wales. Of the 6,000 or so employed in Remploy factories in the whole country, a little more than 1,000 are employed in South Wales. This is a very important point to bear in mind in view of the population comparison between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
We would do well to appreciate and pay tribute to the substantial contribution made by Remploy towards the solution of the problem we are discussing. I agree that in all probability the range of products could be extended and that the scale of wages deserves looking into, but there is a great deal to be said on the credit side.
In particular, the Remploy factories do not remain static in their attitude to employment. I was gratified to learn from a recent report that the Remploy factories have, by arrangement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, taken in a small number of patients suffering from the effects of schizophrenia. This effort to give mentally disordered persons a place in the working life of the community deserves every sympathy and encouragement. The rehabilitation of these particularly unfortunate disabled persons is a challenging experiment, and it must be a satisfaction to us all that the results, according to the report, have so far been very encouraging.
Before leaving the subject of Remploy, should like to say that, appreciating

487
as I do the strength of the remarks made about wages and so forth, it must be a matter for satisfaction that during the last year the sales revenue exceeded £5 million. There was a marked increase on the figure for the previous year—an increase, I understand, of about 23 per cent. For the first time sales revenue has exceeded the total of wages and raw materials. In other words, the Remploy factories seem to be turning the corner in their development. One can, therefore, look forward with great confidence to an increase in their employment figures.
No discussion of employment of the disabled in Wales would be complete without reference to the Grenfell factories. They are to be found only in Wales. They came into being as the fruits of the labours of the working party set up in 1944 under the chairmanship of one who will always be known in South Wales as Dai Grenfell, and who was for so long a distinguished Member of this House.
It was the original intention of the Government that these factories should employ at least 50 per cent. disabled persons. South Wales was chosen as the area for them because that was where, unhappily, the greatest number of persons suffering from pneumoconiosis was concentrated. As the right hon. Member for Llanelly said, one cannot consider the question of disablement in Wales without thinking of pneumoconiosis.
It is perhaps unfortunate that because these factories were advance factories—not purpose-built—and because the rent rebate did not prove as attractive to firms as was originally hoped, the original terms had to be modified and rather less than 50 per cent of those employed were disabled persons. Even so, of the number employed, just under 2,000, in the thirteen factories which exist in Wales—by coincidence, it is the same as the number of Remploy factories—about 750 are disabled persons, and some two-thirds of them are sufferers from pneumoconiosis.
Perhaps the most satisfactory thing of all in this connection—it has been eloquently referred to by the right hon. Member for Llanelly—is the tremendous fall in the incidence of this dread disease
488
in recent years due to improved methods of dust prevention and employment of sufferers in dust-free conditions. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those responsible for this great deliverance. I have some interesting figures on this subject. I learn that in April this year there were only 400 sufferers from this disease unemployed compared with nearly 5,000 fourteen years ago.
Before I leave the problem of the disabled, there is one general remark that I want to make. It is a matter which I have discussed with hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). Obviously, the problem of the disabled exists in its most acute form within areas of concentrated population. It is there that the greatest efforts have to be made. But we should never forget that in the rural areas of Wales we find a person here and there who is disabled, and the needs of such persons must not be ignored.
I now want to say a few words about the employment of the elderly. I think it is right to say that the over-fifties in general have benefited from the improved employment position, and this is reflected in the decrease in the numbers of that group who are registered as wholly unemployed. According to the figures which I have received from the Ministry of Labour, there has been a reduction in this group during the last two years from nearly 9,000 to a little over 6,000. That is a very significant fall of about 30 per cent. There has also, during that period, been an increase of a few thousands in the number of those persons employed.
I was very impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the difficulty of obtaining employment for elderly persons. It is clear that employers must constantly be pursuaded of the need to make full use of the services of older workers. The difficulty is—it exists elsewhere just as much as it does in Wales—that, to use an economist's phrase, when the economy is not buoyant, employers tend to become selective and older workers generally experience difficulty in obtaining employment. As I have said, it is a general problem and not peculiar to Wales. It is the duty of this House to ensure that the older workers benefit like everybody else from overall expansion and better distribution of industry.

489
Many of the problems discussed today are of general application, and I think it is fortunate and appropriate that we should have discussed them on the one day when we have, or should have, the Floor of the House entirely to ourselves. I hope that the observations that we have made and the conclusions that we reach will be of benefit not merely to our fellow Welshmen in the Principality but to Britain as a whole.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Probert: I shall confine myself to a few brief remarks on this subject because I had intended to speak upon another subject earlier in the day. I consider that this problem is in many respects just as serious a social problem in its impact on my constituents as the problem which we discussed earlier—the question of leasehold. Many of my constituents who are disabled are finding themselves faced with the problems of leasehold at the present time. I know that the leasehold question is not referred to in the Report which we are considering, and I will not discuss it any further, but I felt that it was important to stress the coincidence that today we are discussing two serious problems which affect many people in South Wales and my constituency as much as, any other constituency in the whole of South Wales.
I wish to refer to some statistics, from Government reports, about accidents in employment. I refer first to accidents in all employment and claims for injury at work causing at least three days' incapacity. In 1959 there were 826,000 such cases in the United Kingdom. The other figures that I have refer to other industries, but I want to point particularly to one industry in my constituency in connection with these accidents.
I repeat, therefore, that in 1959 there were 826,000 such accidents. In the mining industry—and I have 7,000 miners in my constituency—there were 209,168 accidents in 1959. The significance of the figures is that more than a quarter of all the accidents in the United Kingdom in that year occurred in the mining industry. Indeed, the figures for 1956, 1957 and 1958 show that in each of those years the incidence of accidents in the industry was more than a quarter of the total.
490
Now I turn to my constituency. I will quote two local figures. The question which concerns me very much is that of the disabled unemployed. In June, 1960, there were 157 Section I and Section II disabled unemployed. In June last there was some improvement, of which I am appreciative—although I have wondered, and have discussed with the managers of local labour exchanges, how much this so-called improvement is due to what I must, rather morbidly, call wastage due to death. Last June there were 144 Section I and Section II disabled unemployed. They have been unemployed for a very long time. This is a great social evil.
I want to compare that figure with the total number of unemployed in the constituency, because that is relevant. I must use the May figures of the total unemployed because I have not the June figures. The figure for May was 570, but I understand that it has been slightly reduced. Thus, 144 disabled unemployed represents more than 26 per cent. of the total. Indeed, in the figures for June, 1960, it was more than 30 per cent.—almost one-third—of the unemployed. That is why I am so very concerned about the disabled.
I want to pay tribute to the local factories in my valley, and here I must also include the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams) and Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson), who have the trading estates of Treforest and Hirwaum. The factories in those estates and in my constituency are employing far more disabled people than the statutory percentage. I have stated in this House before that this is a great tribute to the industrialists there, and I again want to pay them tribute tonight.
I come now to Remploy. I add my tribute to that paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to this imaginative social innovation of the post-war years. It has had a considerable effect on the disabled, particularly in my constituency, where there has been such severe disability due to pneumoconiosis and other diseases. It is a great mistake of the Government of the day, whatever its political colour, to create a ceiling for Remploy. The figure is, I believe, about 6,000 for the United Kingdom as a whole, although I am aware

491
that the actual number now is 6,300 or 6,400. To create a ceiling is a short sighted policy, however.
Anyone who knew disabled persons who were unemployed before Remploy came into being, and has seen them after a period of employment in Remploy, has seen these men absolutely transformed. They are the envy of the few hundred disabled who are still unemployed in their neighbourhood.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that a promise had been made that when new Remploy factories were added the first would come to Wales. In a sense, that promise was made to me by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. My constituency prepared for such a factory but, unfortunately, it has not come about.
It is no good telling me that there are Remploy factories in Merthyr or Rhondda or at the bottom end of the valley, because the topography of my area means that, generally, one has to cross mountains in order to get to those factories. Indeed, from my constituency, quite a number of chaps are having to travel these arduous routes in the most inclement weather. I hope, therefore, that the Government, in their wisdom, will begin to look forward instead of back and will, when they come to extensions of Remploy, consider the claims of the Aberdare Valley.
I want to venture criticisms about the way in which Remploy appears to me to be working. I admit that the matters I shall refer to were raised with me many months ago, and it may be that some of these things have been rectified. But if they happen in other Remploy factories, then the Minister of Labour must pay attention to them. First, there is the question of overtime. In conversations I have had with chaps in these factories—and every point which I shall mention arises from such conversations—they were concerned with the excessive overtime that they were being forced to work. There was even the question of a night shift to meet extra work which had come in as an emergency.
But when one thinks of between one hundred and two hundred disabled people, most of them in Section I, in
492
my constituency, having to work night shifts and excessive overtime—which in view of their disability is not conducive to their progressive good health—and remembers that they have comrades who have been unemployed for many years, one can imagine the feelings both of those who are unemployed and those who are employed. But these men are afraid to refuse overtime.
There is also the matter of fit men, already in full time occupation in other factories, who have been brought in to cope with certain extra work at Remploy. In view of the purpose of Remploy, this is a shocking state of affairs. Then there is something which is, perhaps, not so objectionable to some people employed in Remploy but is certainly objectionable to me, and that is the use of a bonus system. Remploy is not the place to have a bonus system, whereby one encourages unfit men to do much more than they are perhaps physically able to do. A bonus system encourages such evils.
This all boils down to one factor. I admit that I may have a suspicious mind, but I ask the Minister to pay attention to what I am saying in case there is truth in it. I believe that certain managers of Remploy factories, by applying this bonus system, and by using overtime, encouraging night shift work, and calling in fit men to deal with extra work, are trying to enhance their own personal positions by making their factories highly competitive. I emphasise that that is my suspicion. I mention it here so that the right hon. Gentleman can step firmly down on this practice, if such be the case.
With these few remarks, I am expressing my constituency point of view about what I think is a serious position in Remploy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay due regard to these comments in case there is a grain of truth in them, especially in the last suspicion which I mentioned.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Rees: I want to direct the attention of the House to paragraph 48 of the Report, which deals with the question of industrial rehabilitation, because it is most important to get disabled persons back into normal employment, although it may not be the employment which they followed before

493
their disability, rather than set up sheltered employment or specific employment for disabled people as a group. There is nothing more demoralising or worrying to a disabled person than to feel segregated from the general community for some reason of that sort.
For that reason, I draw attention to the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit at Cardiff and to the whole rehabilitation service. Before doing so, I should like to take up what the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) said about the bonus system. I appreciate his anxieties about unfit persons being encouraged to work too much, to the detriment of their health, but that is a criticism of the method of calculating the bonus rather than a criticism of the bonus system as such.
There should still be a competitive spirit among persons who are disabled, and, although I hope that his words will be noted, that is not to say that the bonus system should necessarily be destroyed, but rather that the allocation of the bonus payment should be carefully related to the man's ability and his efforts.
In Mid-Wales there is a very good example of the provision of normal employment for disabled persons. It is in the Cambrian factory at Llanwrtyd Wells, which is run and administered by the British Legion. It is run at a substantial loss, but it nevertheless produces a normal commercial product in an atmosphere which gives the disabled the most incentive and the feeling that they are part of the community. If more can be done to help in that way, it will be greatly to the benefit of all concerned and of the community generally.
In Wales we have had a high percentage of industrial disabled because of industrial disease. Disabilities can be divided into two categories, those arising from industrial accidents and those arising from industrial disease. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that in relation to population there was a higher proportion of disabled in Wales than in the rest of the country. I cannot quote the figures, but I believe that it will be found that that is largely due to the number suffering from pneumoconiosis and similar diseases, rather than those suffering the loss of a limb, or having a limb impaired
494
in any way in the steel and other heavy industries.
As Wales tends to have a diversification of industry and to get many light industries and some changes in the heavy industries, we will find that there is a shift away from a higher proportion of those disabled by industrial disease to those disabled by industrial accident. As such, we should gear our plans to catering for the rehabilitation of those suffering from industrial accidents who can be brought back into useful and beneficial employment, not only to their own benefit, but to that of the community.
That brings me to the main subject of my speech, the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit at Cardiff. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister about the subject of this unit becoming residential, or of a separate unit being set up at Swansea, Llanelly, or Gorseinon. My right hon. Friend has given figures to show that such an arrangement would be uneconomic. Nevertheless, we must consider what is happening in Cardiff.
The Report says:
"The strength of the Cardiff Industrial Rehabilitation Unit fluctuated during the year, averaging 80. Courses were completed satisfactorily by 81 per cent, of those admitted to the Unit during 1959: 67 per cent. of these were placed in employment or given vocational training. This was a welcome increase on the figure of 56 per cent. quoted in last year's report."
One of the difficulties is that we are not getting all those who are suited to, or who would benefit from, that course at Cardiff. They may have to live in digs. The Ministry of Labour works very hard and is to be congratulated and commended on its efforts to find accommodation for them. But a man has to leave his home and has to worry about the maintenance of his family and leave them while he is in ill health. He has to go to a new environment. There are people living in Swansea who think that Cardiff is a long way away, and there are people in Cardiff who are not always sure where Swansea is. Nevertheless, many men go to Cardiff to attend these courses full of anxiety and misgivings.
The net result is that the more timid, and those who can just manage, try to do for themselves and to stay put and to muddle along. They do their best, but the net result is that their industrial efficiency is impaired and their restoration to full health is impaired, perhaps

495
permanently. The result is that we do not get the full benefit which we might obtain from the unit.
I appreciate that when considering Wales the Minister has to remember that it is part of Great Britain and that what he does in one corner of the country will be blazoned across the Chamber here and that he will have shouts from all over the country asking why, if he can do something for South Wales, he cannot do it in other areas. Consequently, he has to look after the purse strings and make sure that he is not spending money too lavishly in one quarter.
However, I suggest that he considers parting company with responsibility for industrial rehabilitation, handing it over to the Minister of Health. I am not sure that the Minister of Health necessarily wants it, but we are dealing with human beings who are sick and ill. We talk of the industrially disabled, but that should include the injured housewife who is also an industrially disabled person needing treatment. There is no way of training her to use a broken arm, or to get along after an arm has been amputated. She needs training in the same way, but the unit at Cardiff is sectionalised to deal with those engaged in industry of one sort or another, although not necessarily of the type which they knew before disablement. Sometimes those engaged in clerical jobs need rehabilitation, major or minor.
There is a good physical medicine service in many hospitals in South Wales and, with a little co-operation between the two Ministries, it might be found possible to expand the physical medicine rehabilitation services in the hospitals to include a larger element of industrial rehabilitation. That will require considerable co-operation from industry as a whole, because it is no good trying to teach a man how to use a lathe when he has one arm unless one has the lathe on which to show him.
I have seen examples in some of the motor car factories where the firms have been prepared to adjust and even adapt some machinery in a small rehabilitation department of their own in order to get some of their injured workpeople back to work quickly. I hope that that is something which will spread throughout the country and will be used as an
496
example by the Ministry of Labour for many of our industries in South Wales.
The larger industries do much of this work, but, I am glad to say, in South Wales we are not concentrating solely and simply on the big units, but are encouraging smaller firms. Smaller firms, however, do not always have the resources to provide facilities of this type. If my right hon. Friend could see his way to expand them, I am sure that over the years we would gradually see the problem of the disabled reduced, although it will never become negligible because there will always be industrial accidents. However, the number will be reduced and we will be able to get people back into employment more quickly as we get expert advice about changing employment and getting disabled men into industries more suitable to their new conditions of health.
It has been suggested that one way of recruiting to the coal mining industry is to show that the dependants of men suffering from pneumoconiosis will be properly cared for, but more should be done to show what advance is being made with getting rid of dust in the mines. More research should be done. People are well aware of the problem, but if the authorities could show that they are trying to get rid of that dread disease—and it has been a dread disease in South Wales for many years—we should find that much of the problem would go and that in most industries the emphasis would swing more and more to industrial accidents and away from industrial disease.
I do not want to detain the House longer than to say that the figures are encouraging, but we must not be complacent about them. There is nothing more demoralising to the community than for it to have large groups of men who are unemployed and who, although they may be financially cared for by the State, feel that they are on the scrap heap and wasted. In the clubs and various social communities men have said to me that they are on the scrap heap, and that is demoralising to the person who hears it.
If we are to be competitive in world markets and in our own markets, we must use our labour to the full and to the most beneficial capacity. We cannot afford to have people injured or

497
ill, or disabled. I am glad to see the progress mentioned in the Report, for this is the most important aspect of employment, but I hope that in future Reports we will see even more encouraging trends, with the percentages falling and more people being more fit for work.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: One of the disturbing features of the problem of the disabled in Wales is that 10 per cent. of the number of disabled persons are unemployed. This has to be related to the figure of about 2·3 per cent. of the general unemployment situation in the Principality. This relatively high figure of unemployed disabled persons in Wales is at a time when the opportunities for employment are better than they have been for a number of years. We have seen established in the valleys of South Wales and in the cities in recent years additional factories and industrial undertakings, and one would have thought that the disabled would have a corresponding share in the increased prosperity. But that is not so.
I want to refer to the position of those who are seriously incapacitated and who require sheltered employment. In this state of affluence, when these factories are being built and the general unemployment figure is down to 2·3 per cent., the number of persons requiring sheltered employment has increased. It went up last year from 585 to 619. It may be argued that a few hundred men disabled is not a very serious feature, but I would remind the House that these men are seriously incapacitated. Some are disabled ex-Service men seriously maimed in the last war and some in the war before, and there are those who have been seriously incapacitated in industry, particularly in the mining industry, and serious cases of pneumoconiosis. These men require sheltered employment.
Within the figure of 619, there are some people suffering from various congenital forms of disability. Their numbers have increased at a time when there has been an improvement in the general employment situation in South Wales. That is a reflection upon the Government. The figure of 619 looks cold, but behind it there are human tragedies. It consists of people who have given up hope of getting
498
a job. Some of them are young ex-Service men, and they see no chance of a job. Their health is being impaired by their continued unemployment. Some of them have wives and children. Their wives are bound to go into the same markets and try to purchase the same food and clothes as the wives of the able-bodied section of the community. Many are poor, and are on National Assistance. I repeat that the number of disabled persons has increased from 585 to 619.
I pay tribute to some of our voluntary organisations, such as the Red Cross, which are doing so much to lighten the burden of those who require sheltered employment. I cannot say the same for the Government, who have the financial power to assist Remploy to set up more factories in Wales and provide further sheltered employment. The 1960 Report of Remploy points out that one of the results of the financial agreement arrived at in 1956 with the Minister of Labour was that Remploy was unable to employ more than 6,250 persons. That is shocking. Here we are with our affluent society, in the middle of so-called prosperity, and yet Remploy has remained static. In 1955, Remploy was employing 6,400 people, but the figure now is just over 6,000, and yet we have all around us this increased prosperity.
No Remploy factory has been constructed in Wales since 1952, yet Remploy was formed to give work to those requiring sheltered employment. Its organisation is efficient. The present situation is not the fault of Remploy; it is due to lack of financial support by the Government. It is a very serious criticism of Government policy that they do not feel able to afford to spend more money on capital expansion for Remploy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) has referred to the need for a factory in his constituency. What a great feeling of satisfaction there would be if it were known that another 200 seriously disabled men could get jobs. It is work that these men want. They want a sense of security—to be able to go out and get a job. They deserve all that the community can do for them. They are men who have been injured in the service of their country in war and in peace. They are disabled, and they feel that they are rotting away. What does it matter if we spend another £2

499
million on Remploy, bearing in mind what a sense of happiness and contentment we shall be giving these men, who deserve the best?
We talk about the need for recruiting men into the Forces. If we want recruits we must guarantee that in the event of disablement there will be a job available. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pointed out, the difficulty in the mining industry is that the men feel that if they are disabled they will not be able to get a suitable job. This feeling has eaten into their systems.
There is a Remploy factory at Blackwood, in my constituency. Very few people have been taken on there. After some efforts, one man was taken on not long ago. I met him and his wife a month later. It was a pleasure to see the look on his face. He was satisfied because he now had a job and was earning money, and was able to go out in the morning and return home in the evening with a feeling of self-respect. Seeing him was compensation enough for the efforts that had been made to get that man into Remploy. The Government have squandered far more than £2 million. That is all that we are asking should be given to provide work for these people.
What is the position of the ordinary disabled person who is fit for light work? It will be said that the figures have gone down. They have to some extent. Last year the figure was 4,562, and it has gone down to 4,024. That is some improvement, but the position ought to be looked into further, because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of these men come from the valleys of South Wales, and in that area a number of factories and industrial undertakings have been set up. Steps should now be taken to see whether sonic of these industrial undertakings would be prepared to take an additional number of disabled people.
The employment of 3 per cent. disabled people is not sufficient in an undertaking which employs more than 5,000 men. That figure should be looked at again in the light of present circumstances. It should be increased to about 4 per cent. If that were done, it would provide additional employment in the valleys.
Next there is the problem of men having to travel to and from work. Even
500
if we get an additional Remploy factory in the valleys of South Wales, it will still be necessary for some men to travel from the villages. Travel is difficult for some people, particularly for those who suffer from pneumoconiosis and who feel the effects of it on a cold and frosty morning. It is about time that the Government encouraged local authorities to provide buses to take these men to and from work.
The Government do not seem to tackle the problem boldly. They do not give sufficient encouragement to local authorities to set up workshops for the disabled. The Act provides for local authorities to do this, but there does not seem to be any enthusiasm on the part of the Government to tackle this problem of the seriously disabled.
The hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) referred to the fact that some years ago 5,000 men in the valleys of Wales were unemployed and disabled by pneumoconiosis. Now there are about 400. Until about ten years ago men were not allowed to return to employment in the mining industry if they were suffering from pneumoconiosis. I have vivid recollections of dealing with many cases of men suffering from this disease. Thousands of men were unemployed, but then the Medical Research Council came to South Wales and recommended that many of these men could, in the early stages of the disease, be given approved conditions of employment. The result was that thousands of them returned to work in the mines, and they are there today. Thousands of men now at work in the pits of South Wales are suffering from pneumoconiosis.
I pay tribute to the National Coal Board for employing thousands of disabled men, both underground and on the surface. By doing so it has eased the anxieties of the Minister of Labour. I am sure that the officials at the Ministry of Labour breathed a sigh of relief some years ago when the National Coal Board decided to employ these disabled men.
I have been to the Cardiff Rehabilitation Centre and have seen the excellent job that is being done there. I was extremely impressed by their efforts but what I want to know—and I raised this point in the Welsh Grand Committee—is how many of these men, after being rehabilitated, receive employment. When

501
we last discussed this subject the figure of 56 per cent. was given. That is not an over large figure when one considers that, after receiving treatment, 44 per cent. of these people do not find employment. I therefore urge the Minister to look more closely into the attitude of the employers in this matter.
I appreciate that many employers employ more than the 3 per cent. disabled. But many, however, keep rigidly to the 3 per cent. figure. In this connection the Ministry of Labour should carry out a detailed inquiry to see how many disabled men have been taken into employment in the various industries in South Wales.
All hon. Members agree that Remploy is doing its work efficiently, and I agree that its sponsorship scheme, whereby certain employers supply the raw materials to Remploy and the workers there produce the necessary goods desired by those employers, is an excellent system. I pay my tribute to employers who have joined this scheme, but can we be told exactly how many have joined? I often feel that the whole question of Remploy should be publicised more in order to make its efforts better known.
How many Government Departments, for instance, are taking commodities from Remploy? Are Government Departments encouraging Remploy sufficiently? The same question can be asked of local authorities. Are they giving some of their contracts to Remploy? And what about some of the other industrial undertakings? Many hon. Members are extremely interested in the activities of Remploy, but we seem to hear little of these activities. Going about the country one might see the occasional van passing by bearing the Remploy name, yet very little is known about the actual work going on. In order to make it more efficient, everything should be done to encourage that organisation's activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare spoke about pockets of unemployment in South Wales. That is very true and, for example, in Bargoed there are 108 disabled unemployed and in Blackwood 82 or 85 are unemployed. Those are just two examples, but the areas, added together, result in a considerable figure of unemployment. I therefore
502
urge the Government to study this problem of unemployment and disability with much more initiative than they have done hitherto.
I hope that we shall receive a concrete reply from the Minister tonight as to what steps the Government are prepared to take to improve the situation of this section of the community that is deserving of the best, and I hope, too, that as a result of this debate we shall get something definite, which we have not had before. I hope also that hon. Members will receive a concrete reply about Remploy and the financial handicaps that are preventing this excellent organisation from carrying its efforts still further.
All hon. Members are anxious to see these people employed, and if we do not receive some definite undertakings from the Government we shall take the matter into our own hands and point out the failure of the Government to do something more quickly. After all, if something cannot be done now—at a time of full employment—what hope have we if unemployment comes next year or the year after? Now is the time to get these disabled men and women employed.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. T. W. Jones: So far every speech that we have heard has dealt with South Wales. For the next ten minutes I should like hon. Members to come with me to North Wales. If it were possible I should like to drop them at Llangollen, where they would see the representatives of the world enjoying themselves.
Anyone who represents coal miners and quarry workers must have an acute knowledge and experience of the ravages of one disease in particular, pneumoconisis. It is extraordinary how recently this disease was recognised as an industrial disease. It used to be generally believed that it was a chest weakness which was peculiar to certain areas or perhaps was the result of heredity. One has only to read the gravestones in any quarry town or village in North Wales to appreciate how merciless this disease has been. Before it became recognised as an industrial disease very little, if any, precaution was taken against it because, as I have said, it was believed to be inherent in the worker himself. It was

503
believed that it was his constitution which was at fault and not the constitution of the industry in which he was engaged.
The only underground slate quarries in Britain, if not in the whole of Europe, are to be found in my constituency of Merioneth. In places like Corris and Blaenau Ffestiniog this disease has been rampant, and it is heartrending to speak to men of middle age who are doomed for the rest of their lives to be out of work. They are good men, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has referred to their calibre.
A fortnight ago I had occasion to go to the tuberculosis sanatorium at Llangwyfan to see a councillor of Blaenau Ffestiniog who was there suffering from this disease. Standing by his bed I recognised three more people from Blaenau Ffestiniog suffering from the same disease. One was a former quarryman's union secretary. In the fifth bed was the chairman of the Gwyrfai Rural District Council, a personal friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), suffering from the same disease. They were all there in this sanatorium trying to recuperate.
One would be much happier if these people were cared for, received adequate pensions or decent compensation. But, indeed, not only are they badly treated in life; they are badly treated at death. I want to refer to an un-Christian and inhuman practice. If a man has been certified for twenty years or more to be suffering from this disease and has been compensated for it, when he dies his poor widow cannot claim compensation until his lung has been extracted to prove to the doctors and the tribunal that he has been suffering from silicosis. Yet for twenty years he has been gasping for breath, and it has been obvious to anyone who has spoken to him that his lung has been solidified by the dust from the stone and the slate.
Apart from these effects, these people are physically fit in every other way, but they are obviously unfit for heavy work. Nevertheless, they deserve better of the nation than to be left on the scrap-heap, as happens today. They could be usefully engaged in a specialised industry. This would answer two purposes.
504
First, it would make them independent, and every man wants to feel independent, after giving his life to the nation in industry. Also, it would prevent them from dwelling on their plight and having the mental agony which so many of them suffer now.
We shall for all time be grateful as a country to the late Mr. Ernest Bevin for all he did on behalf of the disabled and for convincing us in a practical manner that the disabled could be restored to become useful citizens. I emphasise that in this debate: Bevin believed and proved that the disabled man could still be a useful citizen.
It is incredible what a disabled man can do. During the war, at the behest of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who was then a highly placed civil servant—I was always obedient to her, and I only hope that her husband has been as obedient as I always was—I went to an institution at Colwyn Bay to interview the secretary. After I had rung the doorbell, the door was opened and an armless man confronted me. I was much intrigued to know just how he had unlatched the door. Imagine my surprise when he told me that he was the secretary I had come to interview. During the interview, he wanted to make some notes. He put a pen between his toes and wrote in a manner which would put my penmanship to shame, and I am an ex-school teacher, supposed to be an expert in legible writing. He showed me his paintings which would do credit to the Royal Academy. This man was the product of the Remploy factories. He was armless, but he was yet able to prove himself a useful citizen. I say again that we are indebted for all that to the late Mr. Ernest Bevin.
I do not know how much it costs the nation to produce a man able to do those things. But who would begrudge whatever it cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty mentioned a sum of £2 million to establish a Remploy factory. We cannot measure these things in £ s. d. We owe a debt to these people who have given of their best in the interests of their country.
This is a Welsh day and one is excused for making constituency points on such an occasion. So far, I have dealt with

505
men who are suffering from one particular disease. Of course, there is inevitably a large number of such men in every quarry area, in Merioneth and in Caernarvonshire. Unless the Government find means of employment for these men, they will be doomed to be left on the industrial scrap-heap because we cannot expect private enterprise to step in. We cannot depend on philanthropy and altruism. One cannot think of an industrialist saying, "I shall establish a factory here because these men are unfit and disabled". Therefore it calls every time for Government action.
I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Minister to the town of Blaenau Ffestiniog. There is one thing in my favour in so doing. Blaenau Ffestiniog is scheduled as a development area. The Government therefore recognise their responsibilities in relation to this town and the area around it. I discovered last week that of all the people signed on at the labour exchange 37 per cent. of the men are disabled and 15 per cent. of the women are disabled. These are astounding percentages, but they will appear more astounding when I say that people suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis are not included in them. It will therefore be appreciated what a great problem we have in Blaenau Ffestiniog.
Mr. Brooke: Would the hon. Gentleman give numbers and not merely percentages?
Mr. Jones: I will. I anticipated that I would get that question from the Minister or from an hon. Member opposite. It is true that there are only sixteen disabled men, apart from the other people about whom I have been speaking. They can be reckoned by the scores. It is obvious from speaking to men in the town that many of them are suffering from this disease and therefore should not be called upon to do heavy work or work as heavy as that which they are doing. We have had the pump storage scheme in operation at Blaenau for the last three years. Many people other than those which make up the 37 per cent. to which I have referred would gladly go to work there, but cannot find employment there because of their peculiar chest trouble.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that a promise of a Remploy factory for Wales
506
has been made by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) put in a claim for it. I ask the Minister to let us have two such factories, but, if there is to be only one, let it go to North Wales, and let it go to Blaenau Ffestiniog. It would also serve the surrounding area. It is all very well for the Minister to derive some courage from numbers. However, we must deal in percentages, too. The In-came Tax people deal with me in percentages rather than numbers. On humanitarian grounds alone, I ask the Minister to think of these men, having worked hard down in the bowels of the earth, knowing the risks that they were taking but believing that perhaps the disease would avoid them. However, it did not avoid them. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the eloquence that I can muster, to consider the town of Blaenau Ffestiniog and its plight in this respect.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I imagine that it is very rare that an hon. Member on either side of the House is followed in the debate by a Member on the same side. I am sure that it is even rarer that a brother in the flesh follows his hon. Friend. That is the only way to put it in Parliamentary language. I know Blaenau Ffestiniog very well. I know it almost as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones). I speak now in all seriousness. I am certain that 75 per cent. of the gravestones in the Bethesda Cemetery at Blaenau Ffestiniog record deaths of people below 50 years of age. That is a terrible indictment of what has gone on in the past.
We had an excellent opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who dealt with the matter positively and exhaustively. He knows the problem from the beginning to the end, and I trust that the Minister will take good note of what he said. We have also had interesting speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who made some revealing observations regarding Remploy factories, from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and, similarly, from my hon. Friend the

507
Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). On the whole, we have had a valuable debate.
We on this side consider the subject of employment of the elderly and the disabled of such importance that we were prepared to allot to it half of the only day that we are allowed to discuss Welsh affairs in this Chamber—not that these people are numerous as such; indeed they form a small proportion of the population. But in times when we are prone to think in terms of large numbers and high percentages, it is only right that we should on occasion focus attention on the few whose lot is less fortunate than our own.
We are dealing in this debate with people into whose lives has entered a strong element of tragedy. Tragedy is personal. It is individual. Numbers and percentages do not measure tragedy any more than a number of thermometers decides the temperature of an area. It is no comfort to the individual sufferer to know that thousands of other people are suffering in the same way. It is a personal experience and, consequently, the problem must be reduced to individual terms. In this case, we must think exclusively in terms of individuals.
In the final analysis—and here I give my little philosophy of life—we Shall be judged by our attitude towards the less fortunate members of our society. The principle involved in the statement
"I will give unto this last, even as unto thee"
—a statement found at the end of a parable dealing with the unemployed found standing idle in the market place—is not only sound morals but sound economics. It predated Keynes by nearly 2,000 years. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1943, introduced by the late George Tomlinson, enshrined that principle. It is one thing to have a Measure on the Statute Book, but it is quite another matter to apply it with the vigour which the conditions demand and with the determination which those who sponsored the Measure expected. It is often urged that although this human problem deserves our most serious consideration, we should not forget to look at the financial aspect. Of course there are financial implications. Of course money is involved. It stands to reason that
508
money will be spent, but every penny lost on the balance sheet will be more than balanced by the weight of human happiness and human welfare on the other side. Indeed, it would be a very grave indictment on the present order of things if a population of 50 million people, supposedly in an affluent society, could not honourably support this infinitesimally small proportion of the working population. Indeed, the Tomlinson Committee expressed this very forcefully. It stated:
"In an industrial country such as Britain the number of separate occupations is so large and the demand for physical activity is so varied that it is possible to find occupations within the physical capacity of all save the small minority of disabled."
But these disabled people need not be a dead weight on the economy. They can, within their capacity, contribute to the national dividend if given the opportunity to do so.
I have visited the Remploy factory at Wrexham. I have visited other factories and other works in the country, and a visit to a factory or to a works can be informative and is usually very interesting. When I visited the Remploy factory on the Wrexham industrial estate I found it not only informative, not only interesting; it was inspiring and uplifting. I was impressed by the excellent tone of that factory. Everyone was usefully employed. There was obvious joy in work and happiness in achievement. The articles of furniture produced, tables, chairs, filing cabinets, were without fault and without blemish. It was craftsmanship at its best.
Prior to the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1943, those men would have been allowed to drift and to fend for themselves as best they could. Many would have moped away their time in their fireside chairs in their poverty-stricken kitchen. Others would have wandered aimlessly in the streets. The Remploy factory is a symbol of change, the symbol of a revaluation of human values.
The principle has been accepted. It is accepted on both sides of this House. It is enshrined in an Act of Parliament. My question now is this, is it being fully applied? Although there has been sweet reasonableness in this debate so far, I am afraid I cannot promise that for the next ten minutes or so.

509
In 1947, in times of great economic difficulties, when the struggle for priorities was very keen and intense and when resources were very few, a start was made and six Remploy factories were built. That was in 1947. By 1951, four years later, the number had reached 86. That is what I call determination. That is what I call vigour. Then, in 1955, ten years after the war, after four years of Tory rule, the Government decided to stop the intake into the Remploy factories to save a few hundred thousand pounds, and yet at the very time that the Government decided to stop further intake into the Remploy factories the then President of the Board of Trade was able to say:
"Production is up, and is rising … The figures today show that production is 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. above that for the corresponding period of last year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 161.)
That was in 1955.
What has happened since? Not a single Remploy factory has been built in Wales since that year. Not a single Remploy factory in Wales has been extended since that year. On the contrary, there has been a decline in the number employed in Remploy factories in Wales.
In 1955, 1,025 severely disabled people were employed at the 13 Remploy factories in Wales. By 1958 the number had fallen to 992 and by 1960 it had fallen to 966. Are we to infer from this, as has been suggested by some hon. Members opposite, that we are on the way to solving the problem of the disabled? Only three paragraphs are devoted to the subject in the Report on Developments and Government Action where it is stated that 5,034 disabled persons were unemployed in Wales in December, 1960 and that the number of severely disabled persons unemployed was 619.
I should like to make a comparison of these figures so that the House may see the seriousness of the position. The number in Remploy factories was 966 and the number of severely disabled people outside the Remploy factories was 619. Is that the measure of the Government's achievement—60 per cent. in Remploy and 40 per cent. outside? Against that background we are told, and I want the Minister to note the quotation carefully, that
510
"Grenfell and Remploy factories maintained a satisfactory level of employment, and vacancies in Remploy during the year totalled 114, all of which were filled by severely disabled workers."
What sickening satisfaction! What brazen-faced complacency!
Of course, all the vacancies were filled, but should there not have been more vacancies and do not the Government enter the matter at that very point? The figure of 5,034 unemployed has not been broken down into different categories but when the number of vacancies is 114 and the number of disabled people unemployed is over 5,000 there is a disparity for which the Government must find an answer. The fact is that the number of vacancies in Wales today and in Britain generally is static and there is no evidence of an effort on the part of the Government to increase the number according to present day needs.
As to the general question of disabled persons, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare referred to conditions in his own constituency, but I want to refer to Wrexham where conditions are much more serious. There are 284 disabled unemployed people in the Wrexham division and I ask the Minister for Welsh Affairs to take serious note of the fact that the number has been on the increase for the last two years. During the past year 88 disabled persons were placed and 284 were not placed. It is not to the credit of the Government that the 88 were placed, but it is to their discredit that the 284 were not found places. The 88 were placed as a result of the attitude of local firms and the energy of local officers of the Ministry of Labour, but it is the function of the Government to understand that in Wrexham there are for each person placed three who are not placed.
I suggest that this is no time for complacency. I ask the Government what lies behind this persistent determination on their part to check experiments in human welfare. Why cannot they engender a little more enthusiasm for the Remploy factories? Here is a rich field for experiment. The Remploy factory is not perhaps the only answer, but there is no field of experimentation more rich in its potentialities than this field of experiment in regard to disabled people, and yet we have all the evidence that the Government are shirking the issue.

511
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister for Welsh Affairs and of the House generally to Government action in Wrexham. We have already had evidence of Government inaction. It is my unpleasant task now to refer to Government action, and I shall do so briefly, not because it could be disposed of briefly but simply because this evening I shall be satisfied with sounding the alarm.
Wrexham is the only place in North Wales with an industrial estate, and on that industrial estate there is a Remploy factory. Wrexham is an industrial area, formerly devoted to heavy industry—coal, steel, brick and tile making and chemical industries, all with a high rate of industrial accidents. It had an unbalanced economy, and it consequently suffered severely during periods of trade recession. To balance the economy, the Royal Ordnance Factory was converted into an industrial estate, and the area was scheduled as a development area right down to the last General Election. It was descheduled as a development area on the narrowest of margins. Of course, we were promised that other industries would be attracted to the area. The Minister for Welsh Affairs told us that the prospects for Wrexham were very promising indeed, and that the development of the motor industry on Merseyside would bring ancillary industries to Wrexham.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade informed me in February, 1960, that he expected that jobs for 400 would accrue in Wrexham in the near future as a result of projects in hand or in prospect. That was eighteen months ago. Not a single firm arrived, and the people of Wrexham are still scanning the horizon for the 400 jobs which they were promised eighteen months ago. On the estate itself, there are 33 acres of land cleared specifically at a cost of £40,000 for industrial development. Around this industrial estate is a green belt, which the Government mean to preserve, so that here alone—I should like to have the attention of the Minister, because I am speaking with great concern—here alone on this industrial estate is land with roads, electricity, water supplies and railway facilities where industry can be attracted. Not only is this
512
estate excellent for the purpose, it is the only land available near Wrexham for this purpose.
A deputation from the Wrexham Town Council, the Wrexham Rural District Council and the Denbigh County Council met the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to see what could be done to attract industry to the estate. It was an intelligent delegation, as one would expect from Wrexham, and they could read the Parliamentary Secretary's face like a book. They knew that no industries would come; nor have they come. They were right and the Minister was wrong. Faced with that situation, they suggested that rather than the industrial estate should be broken up, they as the local authority should be given the opportunity to purchase the estate outright and become responsible for its development. They asked to meet the President of the Board of Trade to discuss proposals and expound their plans. The Minister refused to see them. It was left to the civil servants in Cardiff. It was at that level that this question of major national importance was discussed, and it was at that level that preliminary decisions were taken.
A few weeks ago the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, a member of another place, visited the estate. He very kindly informed me that he meant to go there. He wrote in a charming way, and he has, of course, his own personal charm. But I must be quite frank and say that I would have preferred that he should have stayed away. I could read the evil omen. A few days later I received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade stating that he had decided to offer the factories for sale to the sitting tenants, and the land, the only land available and readily usable for industrial purposes, to former owners. I have yet to be convinced that the sitting tenants voluntarily requested the purchase of their factories. Suppose they do not want to buy? What then? This is a serious question.
The Minister of Labour was formerly the Minister of Agriculture and he must be aware of what I am now saying. In all seriousness, again I say that I am fully convinced, and shall remain so until it is proved otherwise, that there has been continual and persistent pressure on the Minister to sell this land.

513
The President of the Board of Trade has persistently refused to tell us who the people are. What we are told is that it is the normal policy of the Government. This is undoubtedly the last refuge of a stubborn and unimaginative Minister. If this is normal policy, if this is the policy for Wrexham today, we are entitled to ask whether it will be the policy for Treforest, Fforestfach, Hirwaun and Bridgend tomorrow.
On the Wrexham Industrial Estate there is a Remploy factory. Is that also to be offered for sale? Is that also, despite all that it involves, to fall under the auctioneer's hammer? If so, what is to happen to the severely disabled people employed there? What is to happen to the Remploy factories on the trading estates at Treforest and Bridgend?
The Minister for Welsh Affairs must know what is happening. The first victim of Government policy, the first industrial estate to fall under the auctioneer's hammer is in Wales, of whose affairs he is the appointed custodian. The Government's policy in this respect is really shocking. Let not the Minister seek to tell us what he and the Minister of State have done. The Government are unscrambling the Wrexham Industrial Estate, and for that single act of economic vandalism the Minister must take his full share of responsibility.
9.29 p.m.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I think that everyone who has listened to the debate will agree that it has been extremely interesting and very constructive. I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for putting so fairly and without exaggeration the very important points that he had in mind. That atmosphere has continued throughout the rest of the speeches to which we have listened.
I felt some shyness when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) say that this was a day when all Welsh Members were delighted that they had the House of Commons to themselves. I am not a Welshman but I was determined to play my part in a debate on a subject which I think is of very considerable importance to us all.
514
Although this subject is one which can often be analysed by using figures and statistics, a theme of the debate in the hearts of hon. Members was that, however much we might quote statistics to prove or disprove a case, what really matters is that we are dealing with human beings, and that it is the human approach to the problem which is of concern to us. Each disabled person is a separate individual with his own needs and problems. It is not much consolation to an unemployed disabled man to be told that he is one of 2,000 out of work rather than one of 10,000. What matters is how this affects the individual himself.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly said that he welcomed the improvement in the general employment situation in Wales, but went on to say that there are still difficulties. He and other hon. Members have stressed that there is no ground for complacency although there has been this improvement. I join in that sentiment. Indeed, I go perhaps a little further. It is true that, whereas in Great Britain as a whole, about 16 per cent. of the unemployed are registered as disabled, in Wales itself more than 22 per cent. are registered as disabled. It is also true that in Wales nearly 11 per cent. of all registered disabled persons are unemployed, compared with 7 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole. Therefore, there are particular problems affecting Wales to a greater extent than other parts of the country. But in spite of this we can agree that, although we still have a long way to go, we have made good progress recently, and there are strong grounds for hoping that this progress will be maintained.
I have listened carefuly to the points put forward by hon. Members about the subject of more Remploy factories and I shall refer to this a little later. But one thing my Department has learnt in its sixteen years' experience of working the Disabled Persons Employment Act is that, given care in finding the right job, the great majority of disabled people are capable of undertaking ordinary employment.
We can go further and say that, for most disabled people, the only completely satisfactory form of resettlement is work in ordinary employment which they can take and keep on their merits in competition with able-bodied workers. From this

515
it follows that the greater part of the needs of disabled persons unemployed in Wales, as elsewhere, must be met through increased opportunities for work in ordinary industry, rather than by the setting up of more Remploy factories or sheltered workshops.
The opportunities for employment open to disabled men and women clearly depend on the employment situation generally. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh if I would correct some figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave—they were, indeed, corrected from the right hon. Gentleman's own side—about the nature and number of jobs available and the numbers of registered disabled men. The figures are that in June, 1951, there were 7,807 registered disabled men and women in Wales who were unemployed, while last month the number was 4,459. This figure is the lowest since 1957.
One of the difficulties we have to face—and the right hon. Member for Llanelly brought this out very fairly and it is a major factor—is that more than half of the disabled men in Wales who are unemployed and considered suitable for work in ordinary industry are over the age of 50. More than one in four has been unemployed for more than a year. The rate of unemployment among able-bodied men and women over 50 is also well above the average, although in this respect the situation in Wales is no different from that in the rest of Great Britain where there is a special problem of finding employment for those people of 45 to 50 and over.
I hope that the House will agree that our disablement resettlement officers are going flat out to try to help to solve this problem. They have a special problem in finding work for these disabled people and they are doing all that they reasonably can. I think that the House would agree that the disablement resettlement officers do a good job, and are immensely assisted by the disablement advisory committees who do so much work to help my Ministry in its job. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work done by these public-spirited men and women who give up their time to work on these committees.
The work of the Cardiff Industrial Rehabilitation Unit has been mentioned.
516
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said that he was there fairly recently and he was good enough to pay tribute to the work being done there. I am glad to say that the performance is better than the House generally knows. About 500 disabled men and women complete courses at the Cardiff unit each year, and of those who completed the course during the first half of 1960, 73·6 per cent. had been placed in employment or accepted for training within three months of leaving the unit. That is an improvement on the figure of 67 per cent. for 1959, which was quoted in the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire, presented by my right hon. Friend in March.
The men and women who come to the unit are those whom the disablement resettlement officers find most difficult to resettle in work. Remembering this factor, we can agree that this record of success—with gradually improving percentage of people who are able to find employment after passing through the unit—is satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) told the House that he had been in touch with me about his concern for rehabilitation facilities in West Wales in general. When I was in Wales on my last visit, this matter was brought to my attention, and I know that there is a good deal of local feeling about it. I want to tell the House briefly what the situation is and what my view of it is.
If an industrial rehabilitation unit is to be opened anywhere, it will be agreed that it must function properly, and to do that it needs a certain minimum number of staff and a minimum number of people undertaking courses. The inquiries I have made show that a unit in West Wales would run out of people who might use it in about nine months. Therefore, it would not be sensible to set up a new unit at Swansea. I have, however, arranged for a special message coming from me to be sent through my controller in Wales to long-term unemployed disabled persons in the West Wales area pointing out the opportunities available to them at Cardiff and the benefit which a course at Cardiff would give them in taking advantage of the better local prospects of employment.

517
My hon. Friend also suggested that I might hand over my responsibilities in this matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I have no intention of handing over responsibility, but I have been in tough with my right hon. Friend who is looking into the adequacy of the facilities for medical rehabilitation in West Wales. I shall keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend about industrial rehabilitation while he is making his study of his side of the responsibility.
We also have in Cardiff a Government training centre with 100 training places in trades such as engineering, radio and television servicing, motor repairing and wood machining. The House may be interested to know that we are opening additional classes in electric welding and hairdressing, and that we are also considering setting up two further classes, one in engineering machine operating and the other for instrument mechanics. Courses in other subjects are available at Government training centres elsewhere and in the residential training centres for the more severely disabled. During the last twelve months nearly 250 disabled men and women from Wales received training under these various scheme to fit them for employment suited to their capacities.
I said that I would try to deal with a number of points raised by hon. and right hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Llanelly, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), the hon. Member for Bedwellty and many others who have spoken in this debate.
First, I should like to spend a few minutes on the question of Remploy. Most hon. Members have said that we need more Remploy factories in Wales. I recognise that communications are a particular problem in Wales, but I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs has done a great deal to improve them. I admit that there are difficulties. It is because of these difficulties of communication that Wales has been given what might appear to those who live outside Wales to be rather more than its fair share of Remploy factories. Out of the 90 Remploy factories, 13 are in Wales and they employ more than 1,000
518
severely disabled men and women. Although the right hon. Gentleman showed that the numbers employed were static, because of wastage, retirement and in certain cases death, during last year 160 new disabled people were taken on by Remploy to replace those who left for one reason or another.
I think that the House also knows that I recently announced that Her Majesty's Government are providing extra financial assistance to Remploy for the next five-year period. I believe that this will lead to an increase in the numbers employed. Although I cannot give the promise for which the hon. Member for Bedwellty asked, I can say that, with the more generous financial arrangements which are being made, I hope Remploy will be able to take on more people than at the moment.
Mr. Finch: The Remploy officials say that as a result of financial arrangements and agreement between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and Remploy, they are restricted to the employment of 6,250 disabled persons. Is that agreement now to be changed whereby they will be in a position to employ more disabled people?
Mr. Hare: These financial arrangements will enable Remploy to take on more people.
Some criticism has been expressed about wage rates, bonus arrangements and overtime. Wage rates are arrived at by negotiations through normal union-employer channels, as are bonus arrangements. As for overtime, the House must not get the wrong impression. It is not normally worked. No doubt the examples of which hon. Members are thinking are instances where, for a particular reason, a factory has had a contract with a customer and has been in danger of not being able to deliver on the right date. In circumstances like that overtime is occasionally worked, but it is not the normal procedure in Remploy.
Mr. Finch: That may be so, but I must come back to my original point. Will the arrangement that the Minister says is being arrived at with Remploy allow it to employ more men? Will more money be given to Remploy to enable it to set up another factory in Wales?
Mr. Hare: Either the hon. Member is being obstinate or I am being unclear. I have said that I cannot give him a promise that a new Remploy factory will be built, but under the better financial arrangements that we are making it will be possible for the existing factories to take on more people. I thought that I had made that reasonably clear.
Mr. Probert: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this expansion, will he bear in mind areas like mine, which has no Remploy factory, so that the disabled people there will have some benefit?
Mr. Hare: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Aberdare has said, but I do not want to get into trouble with his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones), who said that the situation in his area was no better than that in Aberdare.
Apart from the sheltered employment provided in Remploy factories there are seven workshops for the blind in Wales, employing 239 blind men and women. Four of these workshops have recently begun to admit sighted disabled persons, who now number 27, and there are prospects of gradually increasing this number.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Bedwellty who asked why more could not be done to raise the quota figure of 3 per cent. I would point out that I regard 3 per cent. as a minimum and also that many people employ considerably more than that minimum. I am told that 417 employers in Wales employ 5 per cent. or more disabled persons. I am sure that the House will be with me in saying that the greater the number of employers who adopt that attitude the better it will be for the disabled in Wales.
I do not wish to keep the House for too long. I know that there are some points with which I have not been able to deal in detail. Further, some points have been mentioned which do not lie within my responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs has been present throughout almost the whole of the debate, and he has taken a note of the points made. In respect of those points with which I have not dealt and which are my responsibility, I will get in touch with hon. Members later on.
520
I stress again that the employment opportunities available to the disabled must to a large extent depend on the opportunities which are available for men and women generally. I think that it has ben admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite that what has taken place in Wales during recent years is little short of revolutionary.
Only last week when I was in Africa I was talking to a young Royal Air Force officer who from time to time visits his parents in Ebbw Vale. He said, "What people do not realise is that it is now an entirely different place." There is great truth in that, and I do not see why this improvement should not continue.
Mr. Michael Foot: He may be able to say that about Ebbw Vale, but he cannot say the same about Rhymney and Tredegar, where they are suffering from all the stresses which were emphasised by my right hon. Friend. They may be hypersensitive in Wales about the migration of population, but in the Heads of the Valleys they are concerned about it. They are concerned lest the kind of thing which happened before should happen again.
Mr. Hare: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is convinced that it will not happen in Ebbw Vale and that he generously comes to the support of what he considers to be his less fortunate neighbours.
I do not believe that enough credit has been given to my colleagues who have been responsible for trying to encourage new industry to go to Wales. I am referring to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and to their predecessors. Too much has been taken for granted, and it is only fair to say that there has been this real transformation. Thanks to this transformation of new industries coming into Wales, the prospects of good jobs for those who live there are better now than they have been for years.
This improvement is something in which the disabled can expect to continue to share. I assure the House that my Ministry will continue to do all it can to be of service to the disabled men and women of Wales.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Before he sits down, will the Minister deal with one point?

521
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) made a statement which I think ought to be noted. Perhaps the Minister for Welsh Affairs would like to deal with it now. Have the Government decided to dispose of the trading estate at Wrexham? If so, it will be a major change in national policy. I hope that the Minister for Welsh Affairs will realise that if this estate is disposed of we shall take a serious view of such a move. This estate was devised by the Coalition Government and the Labour Government to try to solve the unemployment problem. The news given by my hon. Friend alarmed me.
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of this as news, but he can hardly have read the papers. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) spoke about what I frankly supposed was well known to hon. Members. Where he went wrong was to insinuate that this was a threat to the prosperity of Wrexham. There is no truth in that.
Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend mentioned that the owners of the factories on the trading estate—which at the moment are rented from the Government—were being pressed to purchase them. This is compulsory leasehold enfranchisement. I understand that, but I was concerned about the land itself; that the estate as such was to be broken up and it was not to be the sale of the factories only.
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman does not read the Western Mail and the Liverpool Daily Post, both of which have published these facts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1960 (Command Paper No. 1293).

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS BILL [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [7th July] on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS BILL [Lords]

    Second Schedule.—(MODIFICATION OF S. 2 IN RELATION TO PROPERTY FALLING WITHIN S, 3 (3)).
    Which Amendment was:
    In page 14, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "or
    (c) not being special-range property, accrues to the trustee, after such division as aforesaid, as owner or former owner of special-range property comprised in the fund".
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we had proposed also to take the Amendment in page 14, line 18, at end insert:
    "or
    (c) being property which, in respect of any holding of special-range property, is or has at any time been acquired pursuant to the power conferred by subsection (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925".
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: It was said of the late Serjeant Whittaker who was once engaged as counsel for the appellant in another place, that he sought to put a question to which exception was taken by counsel an the other side. A long dispute followed and their Lordships retired to consider the point. They returned, re-examined the matter and they retired again to consider the paint and finally they told Serjeant Whitaker that he could put his question. He replied that he had, by this time, forgotten it and would proceed to put another question.
    I am not precisely in that position because if I tried to put another question you would very properly rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker. But I am in some difficulty in concentrating my mind on the question which was opened on Friday last in the concluding hours of a somewhat arduous day. I rose.

    523
    The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who had been responsible for the Clause, and I, were here very substantially to put what we thought was an important point which seemed to indicate, perhaps, some possibility that the Act itself had not completely covered a difficulty of trustees.
    With that consumate tact for which I am normally noted, I realised at the very late hour that it might be easier for an hon. Member of the Opposition than an hon. Member on the Government side to raise the matter at a time when the Government were hoping to get their Bill. So I opened the question and was about to put to the House a speech on a subject which, I felt, I had mastered in the last few minutes when, because of the time, like an ever rolling stream, you put an end to my observations, Mr. Speaker, because of the rules.
    Then I saw the Solicitor-General and I handed to him by brief. Unfortunately, I have not got it back. Whether it is now clogging the usual channels or not, I do not know, and I speak, therefore, in some difficulty. I think I can—because I am sure that the intentions of the Government on this occasion are honourable—with the brevity of the briefless, acquaint the House of the principal nature of the problem which I have in mind.
    Section 10 (4) of the Trustee Act, 1925, enables trustees to exercise a preemptive or conditional rights accorded to them by any company in respect of which they hold shares by virtue of a dispensation in the will or by law of the land but, in general, by dispensation of the will because this refers primarily to equity shares. It gives trustees power to have three possible options. They may exercise the right, they may assign the right at a price, or they may renounce a right. But, of course, in either of the first two circumstances they must treat either money they have got by exercising their right or assigning their right from shares they hold as capital.
    Then I come to the problem which arises out of the Second Schedule of this Bill. When they have exercised the power under the will to retain shares
    524
    they have taken no step which is affected by the Act. When they have exercised their powers under Section 10 (4)—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Proceedings on the Trustee Investments Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
    Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Hale: I was afraid, Mr. Speaker, that time, like an ever-rolling stream, was doing something more.
    As I was saying, under Section 10 (4) they exercise their right and at that moment nothing has happened which involves the necessity of taking any action even if this Bill becomes law. But when the Bill does become law and the trustees then exercise the rights given by the Bill, in Clause 3, to invest in equity shares, they come under the provisions of Clause 3 and the relevant Schedule and in due course may be called upon to make an allocation and to say which of their trustee holdings are to be classified as one range of investment and which are to be classified as the other. At that stage, of course, the problem is that they have acquired under the Trustee Act, 1925, certain rights, options and shares which then have to be allocated. I am putting the matter as briefly as I can and I hope that I am putting it clearly. If I fail to be clear, I apologise.
    The problem which learned counsel discovered and the difficulty to which the Law Society called their attention was that at that stage the trustees may find themselves forced to 20 back into the long and tortuous financial history of the matter involving the previous trustees, and to ascertain the history of those shareholdings which were acquired before the Measure came into operation. I do not think I need go into the details of the two separate problems which were postulated in the brief which I hope the Solicitor-General still has, and to which I hope he has given more study than I have been able to give because I have had it for a shorter period than he has. This was raised on the Amendment to the Second Schedule and the Amendment

    525
    which the hon. Member for Crosby had tabled in accordance with a suggested Amendment which was put to us by those who have been exercised by this problem.
    It is fair that I should say—and I hope the hon. Member for Crosby will think I am right in saying—that even on that Amendment doubts were expressed as to whether it was drafted in a hurry because the point had only been recently discovered and doubts were expressed by its authors on all the problems which arose from the conflict of these provisions. I understand that Her Majesty's present advisers have had an opportunity of considering the matter, and it may be that at a later stage the House will be asked to recommit the Bill and to consider another possible Amendment.
    I express my gratitude to the Solicitor-General and to the Economic Secretary for the promptitude with which they have considered this point, and the hope that they and their advisers will have found a solution which will be acceptable to the House and effective in operation.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): It must be very rare indeed that Ministers find themselves able sincerely to express gratitude to an Opposition Member who has talked out one of their Bills. This is quite genuinely one of those cases, because there is no question that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) were on a good point here. I am very grateful that we have had a chance of considering it, and, indeed, that the hon. Gentleman was courteous, kind and helpful enough to give me his brief. I am sincerely sorry that I have lost it by now. I handed it immediately to Treasury Counsel, and it is he really who is the dishonest one; but I will try to recover it and hand it back to the hon. Gentleman. However, the hon. Gentleman did remarkably well in speaking without a brief, and he explained the point which we have had a chance of considering. It is not only the actual logic of the position but even more the Practical difficulties which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I had an opportunity of discussing at once with the Public Trustee.
    The problem is a genuine one, and it would, I think, have led to real difficulty in the work of trustees under the
    526
    Bill on the lines which we proposed. I think it would probably be more convenient if I explained at a later stage what we propose to do and why we propose to do it. We found that the only convenient way of dealing with this matter without a muddle was—I am sorry we have to do it—to ask the House to recommit the Bill and make an Amendment to Clause 3. Therefore, I shall in due course move a Motion to recommit the Bill in respect of the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 29, at the beginning to insert:
    "or which became part of a trust fund in consequence of the exercise by the trustee, as owner of property falling within this subsection of any power conferred by subsection (3) or (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925, or paragraph (o) or (p) of subsection (1) of section four of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921".
    It is sufficient now for me to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which I had moved. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will see fit to withdraw his Amendment in the Second Schedule, page 14, line 18, at the end to insert:
    "or
    (c) being property which, in respect of any holding of special-range property, is or has at any time been acquired pursuant to the powers conferred by subsection (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby has not been moved. It has only been discussed.
    The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to move his Amendment, because the starred Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 29 to which I have referred fully meets his point and, as he will see, it does various things which there was not time to cover when his Amendment was being drafted.
    The two Government Amendments to the Second Schedule, in page 14 line 21, and in page 14, line 22, fall with the Amendment which I moved and which I now ask leave to withdraw.
    Mr. Graham Page: May I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? I suspect that he is about to do something which will prevent me from thanking him at this stage for the course he has taken. I am very grateful to him, and to the hon. Member for Oldham,

    527
    West (Mr. Hale) who helped me out of an embarrassing situation in this case. I did not want my right hon. and learned Friend to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment before I had an opportunity of thanking him.
    The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that the House will now allow me to take the course I suggest.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Fifth Schedule.—(REPEALS).
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, column 3, to leave out "Second" and to insert "Third".
    My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he does not propose to move the Amendments to the Second Schedule, in page 14, line 21 and in page 14, line 22. They are, in a sense, consequential on the Amendment which has now been withdrawn. It remains for me, therefore, to move this Amendment, which is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 29, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Anthony Barber.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Bill immediately considered in Committee.
    [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair.]

    Clause 3.—(RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACT AND OTHER POWERS OF INVESTMENT.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the beginning to insert:
    "or which became part of a trust fund in consequence of the exercise by the trustee, as owner of property falling within this subsection, of any power conferred by subsection (3) or (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925, or paragraph (o) or (p) of subsection (1) of section four of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921".
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has given the reason for this Amendment. Perhaps I should just
    528
    outline again why the Amendment is necessary.
    Clause 2 (3) deals with accrual to the trust fund. In paragraph (a) it provides that bonus issues shall attach to the part of the fund to which the parent investment of the bonus issue belongs. In line 43, a rights issue is for convenience treated as a new investment and not split between its bonus element and its investment element. It is treated purely as investment and divided between the narrower range and the wider range parts of the fund.
    Clause 3, which was virtually rewritten in Committee with a view to making it far more simple and streamlined than it was, deals with property which is held under special powers of the trust instrument. That may be an investment which is expressly authorised or it may be purely covered by some such words in the trust instrument or will as a power "to retain the investments in the portfolio as existing at the time of my death", or it may be simply a power to postpone conversion. That would be sufficient to make them authorised investments.
    When we came to deal with accruals in the original Amendment which I moved last week, we sought to deal with accruals to the special range part of the fund—that is, the investments which were specially authorised holdings apart from what was authorised by the general law—analogously to the way in which they were dealt with in Clause 2 (3). That seemed to us to be logical and to fit in with the general scheme of the Bill. But, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out, that would lead to very great practical difficulties where the trustee had to earmark all acquisitions and sales of rights, and particularly, as he pointed out, the rights issues that were attracted under Section 10 (4) of the Trustee Act, 1925.
    It might be all right if we were starting from today, but all this would involve retrospective research. In addition—and I was assured by the Public Trustee that this was a valid point—it would be almost impossible to sort out, particularly in respect of the rights issues under Section 10 (4), which was the original

    529
    authorised investment and which were the rights issues which were subscribed for under that Clause. We have thought it right to include the rights issues and the investments which are made under Section 10 (3) and also the comparable Scottish statutes.
    Mr. Graham Page: I wish to express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, because this Amendment covers the point which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and I put forward. It will be of particular assistance to a trustee who finds himself with the power under the trust instrument, or perhaps by means of an administration, to hold securities which are not in the trustee security class and then has an offer of a rights issue which he takes up. As the Bill stood, that matter was left in the air. There was nowhere to place it. The Amendment clearly shows how it should be dealt with, that it should attach to the shares in respect of which he has taken up the rights issues. If the shares are held under special range property, then the shares taken up under the rights issue come under the same category.
    10.15 p.m.
    There is one word in the Amendment on which I should like an explanation. The Amendment begins with the words
    "or which became part of a trust fund".
    This Amendment fits into subsection (3) of the Clause as a second category of property which becomes special range property. Subsection (3) begins by saying that the special range property shall include the property which is held by the trustee otherwise than as expressed in the subsection, and then this additional holding comes in under the Amendment.
    By the word "became", the Amendment seems to refer only to the past, to rights issues taken up in the past. I am sure that I am construing it wrongly, but to the layman it seems to read like that and that the Amendment will not apply to rights issues taken up in the future after the Bill becomes law. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend 1he Solicitor-General can assure
    530
    me that I am wrong in my interpretation, but I do not know why the past tense was used. One would have expected the words "has become" or "becomes", or something like that, to include the future.
    Mr. John Diamond: I should like the Solicitor-General to say whether I am right in assuming that the difficulty which we are now solving arises only from a desire still to divide as to fifty-fifty or any other distribution the kinds of funds held by a trust and that if there were no such division, it would not matter whether it was in the narrower range, the wider range or the special range; it would merely be in the trust itself.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is right. If there were no narrower range, wider range or special range part, this problem would not arise. It is because we have now created this third category of a special range part that the problem arises of a rights issue which is, if I may put it this way, ascribable to the special range investments.
    In reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), the word "became" was put in advisedly in the past tense. What we are talking about is what is in the fund already. Whatever is in the fund must have come into it in the past, however immediately in the past. Therefore, the tense was the past tense rather than the present tense.
    One other reason is that we thought that the present tense might lead to an ambiguity, but I need not go into that. It faintly suggested that there was the same trustee throughout, and that, of course, is not so. The main reason was that we are talking about what is in the fund and, therefore, it must have come in, however immediately, in the past.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (on re-committal), considered.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Barber: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I need not detain hon. Members long on this occasion. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill has undergone something of a metamorphosis since it had its Second Reading in this House. Its head and its tail remain much the same, but its body has changed and become somewhat more flexible. In making the very considerable changes which we made in Committee we have given effect to very many of the views which were expressed on both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate.
    Hon. Members on both sides made it clear that perfection of principle should not be bought too dearly, and that it was felt that more weight should be given to the need not only to make the provisions of the Bill more easily understandable to the lay trustee but also to keep within reasonable bounds the amount of work which it imposes on trustees. It was against this background that we considered the Bill in Committee, and I think that the thoroughness with which we tackled the job is evidenced in the fact that it took us twelve sittings to deal with twelve Clauses.
    I do not want to take up the time of the House by referring to the specific changes which we made, but I do want to mention one particular matter which, I think, is of importance. There are, I know, hon. Gentlemen who still have doubts as to whether we have gone far enough in this Bill, but whatever one may think about this there can be no gainsaying the fact that the proposed provisions are very big changes in provisions which have been virtually unaltered for the last seventy years. It may be that in the course of time some further relaxation will be warranted, and in that case provision for stepping up the wider-range part of the fund may be invoked, but I should like to correct two misapprehensions about these provisions which seem to have arisen since last Friday. One of them is a misapprehension about which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) knows.
    In the first place, I have heard it suggested that this provision is such that at any time after the passing of the Bill the Treasury may, if it so wishes, direct
    532
    that a higher limit than 50 per cent. should apply to particular trusts. Those of us who are familiar with the background to this new provision and the discussions which we had in Committee will, of course, realise that that is not the intention and that the provision if it were introduced at all would be of general application.
    The second misconception is that the introduction of the provision on Report reflected some last-minute change of policy by the Government. This again is inaccurate. The Government still consider that in present circumstances the 50–50 division should continue and that basis will apply when the Bill becomes law, but bearing in mind that trustee legislation is a pretty infrequent occurrence—the Trustee Act, after all, is now some thirty-six years old—we recognise that there is merit in the proposal that power should be taken to deal by order with the situation which would arise if at some time in the future it was considered circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant a higher limit than 50 per cent. The Government tabled the Amendment as long ago as April.
    As I say, I do not want to go into the details of the Amendments which have been made, but in conclusion I should like to express the thanks of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself to all those on both sides who have contributed to our proceedings since the Bill came to this House, and in particular to express my appreciation to the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Whether they were harrying the Government or, on some very rare occasion, speeding the Bill on its way they could not have been more courteous, but whatever our differences I think that it will be agreed by all hon. Members who took part in the debates that the Bill is a landmark in trustee legislation, and I commend it to the House.
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I should like to thank the Economic Secretary for those kind words and to congratulate him on his own success, with the assistance of the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate, who also appeared at

    533
    times, in bringing the Bill through its somewhat tumultuous career. It came to the House in one form from another place. It was greeted with almost universal disapproval in detail and approval in principle, in the sense that every hon. Member felt that the present trustee legislation was hopelessly out of date and something ought to be put in its place.
    The Bill went to Committee and the Economic Secretary would be wise not to resist too severely the suggestion that the Government sometimes changed their policy on it. They changed it again and again, and whether the final result is really sufficient for the purpose which the Government have in mind I still take leave to doubt. I am not at all certain that the Bill will fulfil all that is required at the moment or even be workable in a sufficiency of cases, though in some no doubt it will. It may well be that we shall have trustee legislation again. Indeed, I am practically sure that we shall have it. If we do we shall see that whatever deficiency is in the Bill at the moment is a deficiency in the direction of not giving sufficient discretion to trustees, who are called "trustees" because the beneficiaries trust them and who should be trusted more than they are in the Bill.
    I shall not go into that question now, but I was a little alarmed by our earlier discussions today. We had seen at the very last moment one point and had corrected it. I wondered as we discussed it whether there were not many others which we might have failed to see, especially in a Bill which has suffered so many changes in the way that this one has suffered them. The exceedingly complicated structure that results reminds me of the Greek monster that was a lion in front and a dragon behind and in the middle a chimera. I am rather afraid that there is something of a chimera in this Bill.
    I may be wrong but nothing shakes my conviction on two points. Firstly, something badly needed to be done and this, therefore, is a step in the night direction. Secondly the Economic Secretary, the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate had a very difficult part to play and they played it with the courtesy and skill which we have come to expect of each of them. The Lord Advocate even
    534
    succeeded at one point in defending a proposition of Scottish law which to most of us English seemed to verge on the absurd. There was nothing that they could not do.
    10.29 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I, too, sometimes have had doubts about the value of the Bill but for reasons opposite to those expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I hope that that fact will give encouragement to the Government. On Second Reading I said that I viewed its methods with distaste and its principle without enthusiasm. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that the method of the Bill has been enormously improved during its passage through the House, but unfortunately that improvement has been at the expense of the principle which was first expressed by the Government and which, as far as it went, I thought was sound.
    I am all for testators and settlors giving their trustees the widest power of investment. There I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I would always advise that to be done, but that is, of course, at the start of the trust and at the start there are no vested interests in existence. I am afraid that it is quite a different thing when the Government seek to amend the law affecting trusts many of which have been in existence for a number of years. I am afraid that the Bill will cause a great deal of disappointment.
    Many of those who are enjoying the life interest of investments in the sort of properties included in the Trustee Act, 1925, are elderly people who are struggling in great difficulties in these days on a fixed income. Many think that when the Bill is passed they will be able to switch quite easily into those delightful investments which have been described as "blue chips" and which yield astronomic interest on the money originally invested. They will find that when the Bill comes into force and they ask their trustees to make the change which they have been expecting, they will be advised that this can be done only at a very serious loss of their immediate income and, indeed, for the benefit of those who come after them.

    535
    Conversely, there will be a number of people who have been looking forward to the Bill as providing some means of saving what they regard as the wreck of the capital left them by their father. They will press their trustees to make the change at the expense of the tenant for life, and that will arouse very unfortunate conflicts. Those conflicts may be resolved by going to the courts. It would be a great pity if a Bill such as this merely resulted in further litigation, but where trustees do not go to the courts they will have to take most invidious decisions themselves. That is putting an unfair burden on trustees, and in the long run it will not do any good to our trust law.
    For these reasons I do not regard the Bill with any great enthusiasm. I think that it has some good points. With regard to future trusts it is perhaps even to be welcomed. But I think that it will cause disappointment, and it may well be that we shall be considering this matter again before a great many years have passed.
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. Diamond: I am in a somewhat ambivalent position tonight. I recognise that, as has been said, the Bill is completely unrecognisable compared with when it was introduced, and that the changes have gone in one direction only—the direction which my hon. Friends have been pressing and with which I have been most happy to be associated. I am most grateful to the Government for having advanced in that direction.
    I think that perhaps the matter was understated when the Minister said that we had spent twelve sittings discussing twelve Clauses. There are fifteen Clauses in the present print of the Bill, and I think that there is another to be included as soon as it is printed again. In fact, the Bill that we are now considering has at least sixteen Clauses and five Schedules. It is a quite considerable Bill. I want to stress, lest it should be misunderstood, that that Bill has been considered with the greatest possible dispatch and that the minimum time was spent on its consideration.
    I want to add to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said. No one could appreciate the courtesy of the Solicitor-
    536
    General and the Economic Secretary more than I do. I can say this because I recognise that one method that I choose of trying to put my point of view is perhaps rather pointed and forceful. I make no apology for it in the light of the fact that it is from time to time admitted, but I realise that it is difficult to have to sit on the Front Bench and listen to all this prodding and goading and maintain the complete and perfect courtesy and charming manner maintained throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I register my very deep and sincere appreciation of it.
    Although there has been considerable advance in the line which my hon. and learned Friend has pressed, the Bill should not be regarded as an advance in all respects on the previous Trustee Act. It bears, unfortunately, the mark of retrogression in the sense that, whereas trustees previously had complete discretion to choose from a list of trustee investments, they no longer have that discretion. I have made this point so many times that it must be extraordinarily boring for the House to have to listen to it again, but it is right for us to bear in mind at this late stage that this is a major difference. I believe, as does the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), that all trustees should be given discretion with new trusts and investments. I regard it as an unfortunate development that trustees should not have the same discretion as they have had since 1925 to choose from a list.
    It was right that the list should be widened. It was right that the trustees should be required, as they are in one Clause, to take advice. It was wrong that they should have an arbitrary limit put on their selections within the list, notwithstanding that these selections might not be right and in the best interests of those whom they are looking after. I regret that, and the purpose of my intervention at an earlier stage was to reinforce the point that the Amendment which was last introduced into the Bill makes the matter simpler and more straightforward than it would otherwise have been, but that, where there is a rights issue of a certain kind, instead of having a narrower range of investments, a wider range, a special range and one range "in the air", although we no longer have the one "in the air" there are still three different

    537
    categories to take care of, and the trustees are to be responsible for seeing that these categories are taken care of all the time.
    Although this is a simplification of what would otherwise have been the case had my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) not talked the Bill out on Friday, this cannot be regarded by a prospective trustee as a matter of absolute simplicity, and it is one which will not encourage people to take on trusts gladly.
    I therefore repeat that it is unfortunate that this principle became embedded in the Bill in another place, and it is unfortunate that we have not got completely rid of it. But I feel that once the 75–25 proportion is introduced, trustees will undoubtedly select equities, which continue to rise over a long period as gilt-edged do not, and that, once the other Clauses are taken advantage of, we will get to a stage where there is little difference in practice between the 100 per cent. latitude I have always advocated and compliance with the terms of the Bill.
    It was unfortunate that the Patronage Secretary was not present when the Solicitor-General congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West on talking out the Bill. This is a precedent which should be borne in mind on both sides of the House. I was doing my best on that occasion to help the Government get the Bill before Friday was out. This shows how one should not seek to limit the process of democracy which, in the long term, always turns out to be right.
    I take pleasure in the fact that here is an example of courtesy, good will and flexibility by the Government. It shows that there are occasions when backbenchers can put their views, when the Government are prepared to listen, and when it is not right to say that backbenchers waste their time by preparing carefully drafted Amendments only to see the Government voting them down. This Bill has proved that when private Members put forward views sensibly and when they are on a sound point, Governments do yield in the course of battle to the merits of the argument and produce Bills which are considerably better in the long run.
    538
    I invite whoever is to reply to say one thing more about the 75–25 proportion. It is being understood very rapidly among the people that this proportion is not a power which the Government may introduce later but is already on the Statute Book. It is not on the Statute Book. I understand that the Government's position is the 50–50 ratio and not the 75–25 ratio.
    Having regard to the fact that so many are already under this misapprehension and that trustees will naturally, as soon as the Bill becomes law—if they have not done so already—consider how far they will go, many will say, after taking the advice of their lawyers and finding out that it is likely to be 50 per cent., "If we are going to make a division as is required under the Act had we not better wait a little until the Government make, up their mind about the 75 per cent.? After all, it would be better to do the thing in one go." There is no time limit on the 50 per cent. or the 75 per cent.
    I am sure that it would be a matter of convenience to a vast number of trustees and to the gilt-edged involved if the Government could give some indication when they would turn their mind to the 75 per cent. as opposed to the 50–50. We have got over the stage of the Amendment being introduced and no one is making any special point about the breach of principle. We are now on the point of the convenience of trustees in managing their trusts.
    Although I recognise the slight difficulty in which this might place the Government, I am sure that it would be an enormous convenience if something along these lines could be done. Even if the Government were to say, for example—although I should be very disappointed if they did—that under no circumstances shall we consider this matter for five years, trustees would know that they would have to make their decision on the basis of the 50–50.
    The Government may say that as things are going they will reconsider the position in a year's time. This would be a sufficient indication to trustees to make up their minds appropriately. It would be an enormous convenience to trustees, and I hope that the Government will do what they would not normally do on a Bill of this kind having regard to the fact that as the

    539
    Amendment was introduced very late in the proceedings—I agree that it was an undertaking given in Committee—it did not get the same sort of publicity as would an Amendment introduced on the Floor of the House and having regard to the fact that a newspaper such as The Times, in its City column, virtually represented it as an existing part of the law rather than as something which the Government have power to bring in. Having regard to all those things, I hope that the Government will be able to say something on the matter.
    10.43 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: May I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on their conduct of the Bill? I do so with considerable enthusiasm and sincerity because throughout the proceedings on it they had to face not only frontal attacks but attacks from the rear, and they always did so with the greatest courtesy and good humour and provided very full explanations of the Government's reason for turning down our Amendments on many occasions and accepting them on others.
    This Bill, of course, sprang from the admirable idea of greater selection of securities for investment by trustees. Unfortunately, in the course of legislation it has got rather bogged down in technicalities and it may well be that many trustees and their advisers will say that it is so technical, complicated and difficult that they do not want to be bothered with it.
    My reason for rising is to put on record—this has not been mentioned very much—that such trustees may well find that they come within the sphere of the Bill without taking advantage of the 50–50 division of their trusts. Under Clause 5 there are some changes in the law relating to trustees whether they take advantage of the division of the trust under the Bill or not. They are bound as trustees under Clause 5 to consider the diversification of their investments. They are bound to consider the suitability of their investments. Indeed, if the trust instrument gave them special powers they still have to take advice on investments which come within Part II of the First Schedule—investments which the ordinary trustee
    540
    may well think are very like trustee securities, and wonder why it is that he now has to take advice about them when he did not have to do so before.
    The first few subsections of Clause 5 impose upon trustees new and quite onerous duties of continually attending to their trust investments, continually seeing that they are suitable, and taking advice before making new investments. These are new duties which affect even those trustees who do not wish to take advantage of the 50–50 division and to invest half the trust fund in the wider-range securities.
    I do not think that many voluntary trustees will be affected—and by "voluntary trustees" I mean trustees who have been asked by the settlor whether they will be trustees, and have gone into the matter and allowed themselves to be appointed trustees with their eyes wide open. They know that they are undertaking a trust. The present number of trust instruments which bind such a trustee to trustee securities must be very few. The type of trustee who will be caught by Clause 5 is what I would call the involuntary trustee—the administrator who has taken on the administration because he happens to be the nearest relative. He finds himself holding funds under the statutory trusts. He is holding them under a special range property and, holding them as such, he comes within the terms of Clause 5 (2) and has to get advice, and so on.
    He is the person who will be mainly surprised by the Bill, and who needs to be warned by his advisers of what he is in for. It has not been sufficiently recognised outside the House that this is not merely a permissive Bill, telling trustees, "You may divide your trusts and invest half in wider-range securities if you adopt the procedure laid down in the Bill", but a Bill which imposes new duties, which should be well publicised. I am not complaining about those duties; I merely express the hope that trustees and their advisers will realise that these new duties are contained in the Bill and that it is not merely permissive.
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. Barber: Perhaps I should say a word or two in reply. In Committee we discussed at considerable length the scope of Clause 5 and the extent to which

    541
    it imposed new duties in relation to the powers conferred by Clause 1. I will not go into details now, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will appreciate that Clause 5 (2) and (3) refer to the taking of advice before exercising any power conferred by Clause 1. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that Clause 5 (1) is of more general application, but it was my view in Committee—and it still is—that that subsection, although being of more general application, does little more than codify the existing law.
    The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) asked me a specific question about the power to vary the proportion of investments which can be held in the wider range as a result of the power to introduce a Statutory Instrument for that purpose. I think that he asked whether we had made up our minds about the possibility of going to 75 per cent. Our minds are made up. We believe that at present the division of 50–50 is right. The provision to vary that proportion upwards in the case of equities is a provision which may be used in the future if circumstances change, but certainly there is no such intention in our minds at the present time.
    From what has been said, the House will appreciate that the Government have been extremely flexible in the way that they have dealt with the representations made from both sides. We have the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on the one hand, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) on the other, taking almost divergent views, and we have tried to do the best we can to make everybody happy, including the trustees.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I correct what was really a careless and discourteous action on my part? The hon. Gentleman also had—and I am sure that he appreciated the value of what they had to say—the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and my other hon. Friends who diligently attended the long meetings of the Committee upstairs.
    Mr. Barber: I am sure that anybody who attended the meetings of the Committee upstairs will be glad to admit that we had advice from all quarters. Even
    542
    this evening I noticed that once again we had this divergence of view among hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Gloucester said that the Bill bore the marks of retrogression, and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that it was a step in the right direction.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
    Ordered,
    That one tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, and one tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1948. —[Mr. J. Griffiths.]

EXPORTS (STATISTICAL RESEARCH)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
10.52 p.m.
Mr. John Woollam: I wish to discuss the subject of more statistical research into our export trade, but first I should like to apologise to my hon. Friend for the short notice that he and his Department have had of the subject matter of this debate. I have explained the reasons which led to the change of subject, and I think that my hon. Friend understands them.
I think that anyone would agree that more information on a difficult subject such as exports would obviously be welcome. There are some aspects of our export trade about which too little is known. If more information were available, it might help both the Government and private industry in formulating fresh policies.
By way of example, I suggest three possible lines of research. First—and I put this first because I think that it would probably be the most significant and rewarding line of research—it would help

543
if we could ascertain the proportion of our exports which takes place on credit terms. I am aware that a rough guide is afforded by the returns which come from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, but that is only part of the story. A large volume of short-term credit is afforded through confirming houses, merchanting firms, and manufacturers themselves in the normal course of the trade credit which they extend to clients.
All those forms of credit are not necessarily reflected in the E.C.G.D. figures. If we could commence some research into that aspect of our export trade, we should begin to understand how dependent our exports may be on credit. We should have a clearer understanding of the effect their interest rates have on our exports, and on the competitiveness of our exports. For example, if the Bank Rate goes up I per cent., the finance charge element on our export prices goes up by at least 1 per cent. We do not know, at the moment, over what extent of our export trade that rise happens. Does 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of our export trade immediately and directly suffer from this finance charge?
Thus, if we could have more thorough research into this problem of exports on credit, we might have a clearer understanding of the relationship of monetary policy and export prices. That is, if not an unknown, a major controversy in our major export affairs today.
A possible second line of research would be to try to find out what proportion of our exports are being handled by confirming houses and merchanting firms, as distinct from that proportion of our exports which are handled direct by the manufacturers who make the goods in question. It would be necessary, if the results are to be meaningful, for comparative figures for our competitors, particularly Germany, to be produced. I am only guessing, but I suspect that we should find in the case of Germany that a higher proportion of their exports—or, perhaps, a higher proportion in certain categories of their exports—are handled by merchants, often trading on their own account as principals, than in the case of this country.
In any case, such facts and such a contrast would provide a clue to the
544
superior export achievements of, for example, Germany. The question is really whether it will pay us better to put more of our exports into the hands of merchants, whose job it is to specialise in overseas selling, or whether it is a better theory that those who make the goods, the manufacturers, should have that responsibility through their own sales departments of trying to sell their wares overseas.
These two views exist, and experience in this country has changed considerably since Victorian days. It is my impression that Germany does more of its exporting through merchants than does Britain. It may be easier, if the statistics are made available, or amplified, to examine further our invisible export earnings, particularly with regard to shipping and investment overseas.
I have two points in mind. First, in the case of shipping, we have the global totals for the overseas earnings of our shipping but what would be more significant, I think, would be for us to find out what proportion of those earnings represent cross-trades—earnings of our shipping industry which result from their bearing on two foreign countries without them touching this country. It would be a guide to the formation of taxation policy, for it would give a better understanding of our overseas earnings that are truly earned overseas without any United Kingdom element entering into it.
Many European countries exempt, or partially exempt, earnings from cross-trades, and such a view is mot dissimilar to that which inspired the overseas trade corporation concept in 1957. We should also 'have a more informed picture of our shipping earnings which would help us in deciding policy in regard to cargo discrimination, because the main argument against this country retaliating, and the Board of Trade commencing any policy to take powers to retaliate, is whether or not we are more vulnerable than any country to retaliatory methods, and whether those retaliatory methods would really hurt us in hitting cross-trades between two foreign countries. Statistics may be available, but they do not seem to be generally understood or known. If made publicly available, they would help many of us in forming our views about those two aspects of shipping policy.

545
Also, there is the need for more information about invisible earnings coming from our overseas investments. I need do no more than refer briefly here to certain articles which have appeared in recent months in bank reviews which have expressed disappointment at the yield or reward in terms of invisible earnings flowing to this country from the considerable post-war investments overseas. The disappointment ends on a note of puzzlement because there does not seem to be an analysis available of quite why that should be so and why we are not receiving the dividends, yields and rewards which we expected.
I well understand that my hon. Friend, in replying to those three points, may not be able to carry the discussion very much further tonight—they are technical points—and he may wish to correspond with me later. I hope that, at least, he will not present the argument that what I suggest will simply mean more paperwork for industry. Industry will always co-operate—this has been my experience in business—for the purpose of research if the research has as its objective helping the Government to increase their understanding and formulate a better informed and more effective policy.
11.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam) on his second choice of subject tonight and on speaking on it so lucidly. I shall do my best to deal with the points he has raised. He was kind enough to say that I was under certain limitations in dealing with them now; nevertheless, I hope to be able to give some response to his arguments and suggestions.
My hon. Friend said that more information is welcomed. That, of course, is well recognised by the Government. He will probably recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st August, 1956, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave six or seven matters on which he intended to obtain further information. One rather interesting thing he said in answer to a supplementary question, which has a bearing on our debate tonight, was this:
"I think that the part of our statistics which is already almost complete is that which deals with exports and imports. That is very com-
546
plete and up-to-date, and I do not think that very much more needs to be done to improve it."
However, he went on to say:
"With regard to invisibles and the balance of payments—and especially the movement of capital—we are consulting the Bank of England to see whether we can make this information more up to date, more complete and more accurate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1403–4.]
The results of that consultation came when Lord Amory made a further statement in a Written Answer on 28th April, 1959, in which he dealt with balance of payments statistics. He said that he intended to invite industry to co-operate in the supply of statistics on this very point of invisibles and the balance of payments. He said:
"The first is interest, profits, dividends and capital transactions connected with investment by British companies abroad and the similar investment by overseas companies in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 114.]
I am happy to say that we have had excellent co-operation from industry in this respect. Naturally, it has put an extra burden on industry, and, in certain cases, companies have occasionally demurred at supplying the extra information; but when it was pointed out to them how very valuable the extra information was, in every case, I think, they have been willing to supply it. I acknowledge the ready cooperation of industry and the great value of it. We do not pretend that we have reached perfection by any manner of means. There is a good deal more to be done on this side of the "invisibles" and particularly on the side of overseas investment from this country and the returns on that.
My hon. Friend has raised three specific points, the third being divided into two parts, and perhaps I might deal with those points in the order in which he raised them. He asked, first, about what proportion of our exports were made on credit terms and on that he referred to export credit guarantees. I can tell him that the evidence of the guaranteeing of export credits is a most useful pointer. About 18 per cent. of export trade is guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and about three-quarters of these credits relate to goods supplied on six months' credit or less.
In highly competitive fields, even 1 per cent. of price matters, and it would be

547
completely wrong to give the impression that a small percentage was insignificant in these calculations. For example, if we were borrowing at, say, 8 per cent. and our competitors were borrowing at 4 per cent. and the credit was for three months, our credit would be adding 1 per cent. to the bill over that of our competitors. It must also be remembered that credit rates represent only one factor, but they tend to affect the whole economic field. A reduction of interest rates in general might have an adverse effect on our export trade. It might well result in higher imports, less personal saving, and more expenditure on consumer goods.
What my hon. Friend suggests is that it might be possible to establish the overall extent to which our exports are handicapped by high borrowing rates. The difficulty here is to get exact information. For example, some exports are specifically financed by borrowing, such as the more expensive capital goods, but in other cases manufacturers finance them from internal reserves or by borrowing. There is a variation between manufacturer and manufacturer, between market and market, and even between customer and customer. Nor, if we had the information, would it be very much use unless we also at the same time had information from other countries, and that, so far as I know, is not available.
We shall, however, certainly have a look again at this point. I am not certain as to how far we can meet my hon. Friend on that point. It would be a valuable pointer if we could get it, but I must say that I am not certain at first sight whether it would not involve a disproportionate amount of information being sought from industry, and a disproportionate burden being placed upon it. In the last resort, this matter is dictated by the economic situation of the country in which our export drive must work.
My hon. Friend suggests that we ought to know the proportion of our exports handled by manufacturers, as compared with those handled by merchants and confirming houses. My hon. Friend asked how the proportion compares with the German figure. All I can say is that the information collected in the 1950 Censuses of Distribu-
548
tion and Production suggested that merchants, including agents, handle over one-third of our total exports. I do not know whether comparable information is available for Germany. I was extremely interested in the suspicion expressed by my hon. Friend that there may be a higher proportion of trading through merchants in Germany and that that might place German exporters at an advantage over our own. I should like to argue with my hon. Friend privately on that subject. We cannot very well go into it at great length tonight, because we are concerned particularly with statistics. I am inclined to think that even if we knew the figure, and even if we knew the German figure, it would be extremely difficult to make any valid deductions from those two figures.
The next point raised by my hon. Friend concerned invisible export earnings on shipping. I do not know whether he is aware that the Chamber of Shipping annual report shows the receipts for freight on cross-voyages; the figure is shown as £332·6 million for the year 1959 as compared with £338·6 million for 1958. I need not pursue that matter further. It is an item of statistics that is well known. I should say also about it that part of the improvement in statistics that has taken place has been due to the cooperation that we have had from the Chamber of Shipping. That co-operation is reflected in the much more ample balance of payments statistics that we are able to show this year.
My hon. Friend then turned to the invisible earnings from overseas investments, which is a matter of great importance and is, admittedly, one of the matters on which we have a long way to go before we reach any sort of perfection, or even satisfaction, in our statistics. Due to the co-operation of industry, we have had great improvements of late concerning British overseas investment and the returns on it. As my hon. Friend said, that has given rise to a good deal of public discussion and a certain amount of invidious comparison. There is no harm in such discussion. It is one thing to get the statistics, but it is quite different to be happy about them when one gets them.
My hon. Friend said that disappointment had been expressed at the yield

549
on overseas investment compared with the yield obtained by overseas investment in this country. It is a fact that overseas investment in this country has been shown to be very profitable and there are, no doubt, reasons why our overseas investments are not so readily apparently profitable. For one thing, our industry often has to invest defensively overseas; that is to say, where it sees that it will lose its trade unless it builds a factory or makes certain investment in another country, it invests in another country for that reason. Therefore, for that reason, the returns may not be as great.
It is also, perhaps, possible that we have invested more in public enterprise abroad and in other forms of enterprise which are bound, in the earlier years at least, to show a lower return. But at any rate, I think, to look at the other side of the picture, that it is really a direct compliment to the underlying soundness and stability of the United Kingdom economy that foreign investors are willing to bring their capital here and are able to invest with such good results. The fact that they do bring it here shows that they are confident of being able to remit earnings and repatriate capital if need be.
There are no figures of the value of our direct investments overseas as a whole and they would indeed be extremely difficult to get. As the Committee on the working of the Monetary System under the chairmanship of Lord Radcliffe recognised, a census of overseas assets would be
550
"an extremely formidable undertaking, much more so than in other countries. No other country has so long a history of overseas investment, and in no other are external and domestic finance so interwoven."
I would add that if such a census were taken it is doubtful whether anything other than book values could be obtained and it would be difficult to interpret those on assets widespread over long periods of time.
Nevertheless, it is possible to look on the increment of investment in 1958, 1959 and 1960, the last three years, and compare this with the corresponding increment of income. For United Kingdom investment overseas, the latter has been about £20 million, compared with a value for the former of £180 million; for overseas investment in the United Kingdom about £30 million compared with £125 million. All these figures, I should add, exclude oil and insurance.
I hope that I have been able to deal with some of the points my hon. Friend raised. We are improving our statistical methods all the time. We recognise the need for improvement. We are grateful for suggestions how our statistics can be improved and I shall be happy to discus with my hon. Friend these matters at greater length on another occasion. It is important, I would say, that we should not ask industry to provide further information unless we are certain that we can put it to really effective use.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Army Form 2761
  Army Form 2761
  Kuwait
  Kuwait
  National Parks (Training Areas)
  National Parks (Training Areas)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Kuwait
  Kuwait
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Members of Parliament (Communications)
  Members of Parliament (Communications)
  Kuwait
  Kuwait
  Patrol Boats
  Patrol Boats
ROADS
  Road Markings ("Halt" Sign)
  Road Markings ("Halt" Sign)
  Port Talbot Inner Relief Road
  Port Talbot Inner Relief Road
  Brighton
  Brighton
  Gloucestershire
  Gloucestershire
  Newcastle-Gosforth Road (Speed Limit)
  Newcastle-Gosforth Road (Speed Limit)
  Mardley Hill, Hertfordshire (Speed Limit)
  Mardley Hill, Hertfordshire (Speed Limit)
  Great West Road
  Great West Road
  Road Programme (Schemes)
  Road Programme (Schemes)
  Sheffield-Leeds Motorway
  Sheffield-Leeds Motorway
SHIPPING
  Great Lakes
  Great Lakes
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Tests
  Vehicle Tests
  Urban Traffic (Steering Group)
  Urban Traffic (Steering Group)
  Motor Vehicles (Smoke Meters)
  Motor Vehicles (Smoke Meters)
RAILWAYS
  Euston Station (Doric Arch)
  Euston Station (Doric Arch)
POST OFFICE
  Giro System
  Giro System
  Parcels
  Parcels
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Applicants
  Applicants
  House of Commons
  House of Commons
  Telephone Numbers
  Telephone Numbers
  Information Service (Cooking Recipes)
  Information Service (Cooking Recipes)
  MIDDLE EAST (MILITARY AIRCRAFT)
  MIDDLE EAST (MILITARY AIRCRAFT)
  ANGOLA
  ANGOLA
FALKLAND ISLANDS
  Survey
  Survey
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Expense Claims (Leaflet)
  Expense Claims (Leaflet)
  National Theatre
  National Theatre
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service Establishments
  National Health Service Establishments
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motor Vehicles (Theft)
  Motor Vehicles (Theft)
COAL
  Miners
  Miners
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Weights and Measures (Legislation)
  Weights and Measures (Legislation)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford
The Lord Iliffe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CHEMICAL SEED DRESSINGS
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure notification to them if seed dressings containing dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor are used for spring-grown grain; and who will decide, and at what point, in various areas, whether there is such danger of attack from wheat bulb fly as to warrant the use of the foregoing chemicals for autumn and winter seed dressings.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have received undertakings from representatives of the manufacturers of these seed dressings, of the merchants who distribute and apply them, and of the farmers who sow the dressed seed, that they will not be used for spring-sown grain. We have no reason to think that these undertakings will not be faithfully observed, but the Departments will keep a careful watch on the situation and in particular continue the survey of unusual bird deaths should any occur. This will be done in cooperation with the societies concerned with wild life preservation.
On the question of wheat bulb fly, it is for the farmer to decide whether he must use one of these dressings to control this pest, but the Department's general advice is that he should not do so unless there is a real need, and then only in the autumn when the risk to wild
148
life is negligible. The Advisory Services are equipped to give advice to farmers on the danger of attack in given areas.
A further meeting of all the organisations concerned will be held in June of next year to review the working of the arrangements.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his Answer. Is he aware that in the last few years we have come some considerable way in the right direction in this matter, but ought we not to take another step forward in this particular connection; that is, to bring the latest arrangements under some form of statutory control? Is the noble Earl aware that in the House of Commons on July 3 (I am now quoting a Minister, if I am allowed to do so), Mr. Soames, Minister of Agriculture, said (col. 989):
"We believe that these arrangements will work. If they do not work, we shall have to think again whether it will be necessary to bring in some statutory provisions, because we cannot have a continuation of the state of affairs which has existed this year."
Is not that last remark,
"we cannot have a continuation of the state of affairs which has existed this year",
a condemnation of previous policy in this matter? Why wait until the stable door has been opened and the horse has escaped?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think I quite follow the noble Viscount's reasoning. It has been our practice to try to deal with matters of this kind by willing co-operation under voluntary agreement. The Voluntary Notification of Pesticides Scheme, under which these chemicals are being withdrawn, has worked very well and is faithfully observed by the manufacturing industry. As I said in my reply, we believe that these arrangements, which have been agreed to by all the parties, should be allowed to work. My right honourable friend in another place said merely that if they do not work—although he believes that they will work—he would, of course, have to think again. But I do not think we ought to use the sledgehammer of statutory procedure before we see whether reasonableness will not prevail.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while welcoming the Government's

149
belated action—as I regard it—in this matter (and the Minister will be aware that warning was given, and has been given, several times over the past few years), may I ask the noble Earl how he expects to ensure that he gets cooperation from merchants in the matter of the dressing of seeds, and whether he thinks that the Government ought now not to face the wider issue, which is that we need a much greater degree of fundamental ecological research in order to deal with this question, as we are still only tampering with a problem which may well be one of the great problems of the twentieth century? May I, finally, ask him whether in fact any level has yet been arrived at of acceptable contamination among animals from a human point of view in regard to these particular chemicals?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, with regard to the merchants, the merchants' organisations have been concerned in all these consultations, and we have their agreement. The National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants are in agreement to work this voluntary scheme. The second question was about wider ecological research, and should really, perhaps, be addressed to the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council. The third question was as to the acceptable level, as I understood it, for possible contamination of human beings. I am advised that the scientific answer to that is that there is no evidence at all that the amounts of these chemicals which could be eaten by birds would constitute a human risk.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I draw the noble Earl's attention to the words contained in the next Question, that of the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, in which he says:
"… since nothing can deter plans to yield private gain …"?
Should one not really apply that to the Question now under discussion, and apply statutory methods?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, we have not reached the next Question; and, if we had, I should perhaps observe that statements of opinion are not customary when framing Questions.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that the pesticides mentioned in the noble Viscount's Question are very persistent in the soil and liable to contaminate root crops, particularly carrots? What protection has the consumer got against that?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I understand that these particular chemicals are persistent in the soil, but I am also informed that the research work that has been done to date does not give any indication that there is a risk to human beings.
THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH: My Lords, while being extremely grateful for what has been done about dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor, I should think that the seed merchants, who, by and large, are decent and honourable people—though there are exceptions—will help in every way. But is it not a fact that although dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor are the worst villains of the piece, all organic chlorines are dangerous to a certain extent? I ask this question because I myself, and many farmers in the part of the world in which I live, have been using a certain proprietary dressing and there has been a great deal of loss to wild life of every sort. I had this particular dressing analysed, and therefore I am asking my noble friend whether he will consider putting on the same restrictions on all organic chlorines as he did in the case of aldrin, heptachlor and dieldrin.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this question will always be kept under review. I think that my noble friend is referring to benzine hexachloride and chlorinated hydrocarbons of that nature. All the evidence shows that they are not particularly toxic to bird life—or so persistent, or effective in controlling the wheat bulb fly—and that is why we are not at this moment asking that these should be discontinued.

SITING OF TALL BUILDINGS AND ADVERTISEMENTS
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since nothing can deter plans to yield private gain, they will indicate what action they will take to safeguard public enjoyment in cases where the Fine Art Commission might adjudicate, if empowered to do so, such as impairment of amenity which has occurred to the vista down St. James's Street, closed by the Gate Way of St. James's Palace and now altered by the relative bulk and height of the Shell Building; or as would occur if huge advertisements appeared over the screen of trees lining the garden of Buckingham Palace, on the roof of buildings under contruction on the site of the Stag Brewery.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the visual effect is one of the factors which local planning authorities take into account when considering proposals for new buildings or for display of advertisements. In the case of high buildings this factor is of special importance; in the case of advertisements on high buildings it is usually the decisive factor. My right honourable friend is satisfied that local planning authorities have adequate powers of control and use them intelligently. There is always room for differences of opinion over æsthetic questions, and there have been several over the high buildings now springing up in London as in other great cities. But it has to be accepted that high buildings are part of the pattern of the future.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is there room for differences of opinion, if one looks from the middle of Waterloo Bridge on to this building and sees what difference has been made by the structure that has been put up behind it? If there is the power, why is it not exercised in some intelligent manner?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords, there is the possibility of a difference of opinion over that, I would say.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, there cannot be any difference of opinion about that. Have a look at it.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that in
152
modern urban conditions high buildings are inevitable and presumably this constitutes the only method in which we can obtain open spaces in such areas?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, I would say, Yes; and in answer to his second, I would say, broadly speaking, Yes.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his answer, may I put a supplementary question? May I ask him to represent to his right honourable friend what I believe is the principle in this matter? It is to forestall an unsympathetic siting of buildings and advertisements by bringing in some concurrent opinion at an earlier stage.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall, of course, be very glad to represent that view to my right honourable friend, but perhaps I might just mention, in passing, that I think the building which my noble friend is worried about is not the Shell building but the Vickers building which he sees from St. James's Street.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I apologise for that, my Lords, and may I ask a last question? Will the noble Earl consider whether it is not in the public interest to keep giant buildings free of advertisements or flashing signs at night? That is the first part of my second question. Is he not aware that for a similar reason sky-writing has been deemed odious? As to putting the public interest before private ownership, is he not aware of the 20-year ban on tree felling which can be imposed by county councils
on a woodland owner? I think that is an analogy as between public and private gains.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend's questions go a little wide of the Vickers building, but I shall be very glad to look at the points which he has made.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been represented to me that it would be inconvenient for a number of your Lordships to sit late to-morrow night, and it has therefore been agreed, through

153
the usual channels, that we should consider the Licensing Bill until dinner time to-morrow and continue it on Monday, after the discussion on the Finance Bill, and again on Tuesday.

EYEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PARKING PLACES (EXTENSION OUTSIDE LONDON No. 3) ORDER, 1961
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be now approved.
Moved, That the Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 3) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS
2.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to call attention to the scope and powers of the Council on Tribunals and to its operation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I address myself to the subject matter of the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, may I offer to your Lordships a brief word of explanation as to why there has been such a long delay between the time when a Motion of this character was put upon the Order Paper, which was in 1960, and its coming before your Lordships this afternoon. I put the Motion down upon the Order Paper, "To consider the First Report of the Council on Tribunals", just after the end of its first operative year, which was in 1959; but just as I was about to negotiate through the usual channels a fixed date for the Motion, your Lordships' House suffered a calamitous loss by the death of the Chairman of the Council on Tribunals, the late Lord Reading. I would here interpose a belated tribute of appreciation for what
154
the noble Marquess did in the embryo stage of the work of this Council.
As was to be expected, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor experienced a great deal of difficulty in finding a successor. So delay followed upon delay, and it was hardly worth while discussing a Report of a body such as the Council on Tribunals when it had not a Chairman. Then, when the Lord Chancellor found a Chairman, there was further delay in compiling the Second Report. I therefore came to the conclusion that events in this field of administrative law had gone so far ahead of a Report confined to the activities of the Council in 1960 that I would alter the Motion, and it now stands in these words:
"To call attention to the scope and powers of the Council on Tribunals and to its operation; and to move for Papers."
As your Lordships may know, the 1960 Report was published just two days ago. The question that I want to pose for your Lordships' discussion is: can the Council on Tribunals adequately operate in this vast area of administrative law, which is growing and growing? The figures given in the Report are impressive. There were 128,000 cases that came before tribunals and statutory inquiries last year. The warning which the Council give in paragraphs 25 and 124 is immense. For good or ill, this country has travelled very far along the road of administrative law. No longer can the ordinary citizen of this country rest assured that
"no one will do him wrong, because in the ultimate there are English judges who will see that right is done by him".
I do not claim any credit for those words of wisdom: they were uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, some years ago, and they have stuck in my mind ever since.
Who is there to take care of the interests of the ordinary citizen? I thought that the leading article of the Daily Telegraph of yesterday, when discussing the Report of the Council on Tribunals, was apt. This is what it said:
"To the average citizen the sheer burden of being governed is becoming too great to be carried without help. Within, and parallel to, the normal laws of the land and the courts which enforce them is a vast supplementary legal system which reflects the points of friction between the individual and Government departments."

155
We stand in danger all the time, with this great growth of administrative law, of being turned into what has been called "the handmaiden of administrative convenience." We must be ever vigilant, because at the present time in many of the assaults upon the private liberties and the property of the ordinary citizen there is no recourse to the ordinary course of justice.
So what this country needs to-day—and it is illustrated, in my view, by the insistent demand that is ever growing—for the protection of the ordinary citizen against the incursion of the administrative bureaucracy upon his rights and his property is something akin to the Scandinavian Ombudsman. I wonder whether that is a correct procedure for this country. I wonder whether the Council on Tribunals can be moulded, and its powers increased, so that it can eventually fulfil the need that is so apparent, and become the English version of the Scandinavian Ombudsman. If the Council is going to do that, and if this administrative law is going to be so moulded that the citizens of this country have right done by them, then a lot of the cherished and accepted constitutional doctrines in this country will have to give way.
I would invite your Lordships to consider the history of the progress of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act through your Lordships' House. During its passage (which, as your Lordships know, followed the publication of the Franks Committee Report in 1956) there was inserted in the Bill what apparently at that time was considered to be a small Amendment, but that small Amendment revolutionised the whole of the Act of Parliament. As the Bill was presented to your Lordships' House, the Council on Tribunals was circumscribed and limited to strong procedural and other matters referred to it either by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack does not need me to remind him of the stubborn fight your Lordships put up to have some teeth put into the Council on Tribunals. There was inserted in Section 1 (1) (c) a paragraph which gave the Council on Tribunals the right to consider any matters which it determined were important for its consideration. But what
156
was more important, it gave the ordinary citizen the right to make reference to that Council so that it could see that justice was done to him.
As the Report says, that brought about a development which was hardly foreseen and which has opened up a huge field, on the development of which we can only conjecture. But the Council, in its Report, says that the majority of its time will be spent not so much on considering the procedure of tribunals as in considering the procedure, behaviour, and conduct of statutory inquiries. That is a matter which has engaged the Council almost predominantly during these last twelve months, and is the event which, I suggest, has overtaken the Report, which confines itself to a year gone by.
I should like to say a word about the membership of the Council. It is a body of persons, learned in law, and eminent in other spheres. It is a body which can, and I think does, command the respect of all. But there are one or two things in the evolution of its work in supervising the field of statutory inquiries that we must guard against. The last thing that it must do is to become professionalised and bogged down in detail, which I have the unhappy fear it may be in the future. I offer this suggestion in passing. I think it needs a larger expert staff. The independence of the executive is of supreme importance. It cannot become another Ministry, or an appendage of an existing Ministry. It must work quickly. Justice, like charity, is done better if it is done quickly. We have had the painful experience only recently of the Minister of Housing and Local Government taking nine months, after his inspector has issued a report, to give his decision. It may be another nine months before the adjudication and
examination of that case is completed by the Council on Tribunals. It must be borne in mind, as the Report quite rightly says, that the Council on Tribunals is a part-time body.
In discussing the matter which I am asking your Lordships to consider, I intend to confine myself principally to statutory inquiries. I think that we—and when I say "we" I mean Members of Parliament and the Government—must ask ourselves a few stern questions and provide some honest answers. What is the object of a statutory inquiry? Surely

157
it must be that the ordinary citizen who objects to administrative action can feel that he has been given a fair hearing. Secondly, it must be the paramount duty of an inquiry to see that all the facts are marshalled, examined and cross-examined, so that the Minister who has to give his decision will be fully acquainted of all the facts of the case. It must not be regarded as just a piece of machinery to allow disgruntled objectors to "blow off steam". Do the Government realise that they have not only to satisfy themselves that they are doing right—which up to date has proved to be rather easy for them—but also to prove to the public at large that right is being done, which recent history has proved is a little more difficult?
So this matter now stands, in my view, at the cross-roads. During the debate upon Second Reading of the Bill which set the Council on Tribunals, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack promised that there would be a code of procedure that would regulate the procedures not only of the statutory inquiries but, in some cases, of tribunals as well. We have not yet made the draft rules. Two-and-a-half years have now passed. I quite appreciate the reasons for the delay, because all the learned bodies have had to be consulted, and I hope the Government will see that Parliament is consulted. In this particular instance, Parliament cannot have a statutory instrument placed before it on the basis of "Take it or leave it; you cannot amend it". It is also important that Parliament should have the opportunity of considering this code of procedure for statutory inquiries before it is crystallised into a form which the Government cannot alter.
I would say, frankly, that such a code of procedure must give the Council on Tribunals complete authority to see that the procedure before the inquiry, during the inquiry and after the inquiry, is so modelled as to safeguard the rights of the citizen at all stages. I cannot see any reason why, when a statutory inquiry is held, and a Ministry has an interest, it cannot be compelled statutorily to attend that inquiry, to state its reasons in open court and to be cross-examined on the facts it adduces. A Ministry should not be allowed to by-pass a statutory inquiry and then, after the responsible Minister has given a decision,
158
enter by the backdoor and give evidence that it has not given in open court.
My Lords, the first principle is that objectors to administrative action are entitled to have full knowledge of the case they have to answer, but there have been instances in which that information has been withheld. It was so in the ironstone case in North Oxfordshire, where, under Section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government usurped the functions of a planning authority. If a Ministry usurps the functions of a planning authority it should also accept its obligations, and one of the obligations must always be that it should acquaint the objectors with full details of the case they have to answer. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount if he would take particular notice of these points, because there are cases in our knowledge where the procedure has been wrong.
There is another thing that I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to consider—it was argued in your Lordships' House right the way through when we were dealing with the Act, and it is one of the Franks Committee's recommendations that has not been accepted. That is, that on all these tribunals and statutory inquiries we should have independent chairmen and not servants of the Ministry which is interested.
I know the classic case against many of the arguments I am putting forward. But first of all I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to agree with me that it is fundamental that the citizen who feels he has been aggrieved should have the right to know at all stages of an inquiry the facts that are being cited against him. I know the bureaucratic reply. Your Lordships have only to peruse the evidence given before the Franks Committee, and I should like to quote just one sentence from the official report of the evidence of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government given on Wednesday, February 26, 1956, at page 75, paragraph 644. The Chairman of the Franks Committee was cross-examining the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and he was asking why, before or after a ministerial decision, particularly after, the objector should not know the whole of the facts that had influenced the Minister's decision other than those

159
that were given in open court. This is the question:
"… if considerations came in other than those heard at the inquiry and in fact determined the ultimate decision, he might be entitled to know? …"
The answer from the Permanent Secretary was this:
"… I do not think he is entitled to know."
In that one sentence we find the whole of the bureaucratic view on statutory inquiries.
My Lords, the citizen has a right to know everything at every time except in a case where that knowledge would endanger the safety of the Realm. I say that the Council on Tribunals must see that it has the authority to examine procedures before, during and after.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to answer one question. I think it was a slip on his part when he implied a moment ago that the chairmen of the tribunals, as opposed to the inspectors who hold inquiries, are not independent. I do not know of any chairman of any of the 2,000 tribunals who is not an independent person. If the noble Lord has any case in mind I will investigate it, but I think that he was really dealing with inspectors.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his intervention, but I think I may not have said it. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount did not hear me say it, but I said that I am dealing at the moment essentially with statutory inquiries. I am coming to tribunals in a minute. I am not implying that there is any lack of independence among chairmen of tribunals.
Again, it was admitted in evidence given before the Franks Committee that the chairmen of statutory inquiries, the inspectors, were servants of the Ministry. When statutory inquiries have reached the stage they have to-day, when counsel are briefed, Silks and juniors are briefed, on either side, it is more than ever important that the person who sits in authority should be experienced in weighing evidence and should ensure that all the facts are brought before that inquiry. We have only to take the two cases that are uppermost in all our minds: the chalk-
160
pit case and the Oxfordshire ironstone case. If the evidence of the Ministry of Agriculture in the former had been given before that inquiry it might have saved a great deal of trouble that has been experienced since.
In the ironstone case—I do not want to go over it; you Lordships can read the whole of the facts as I have stated them in your Lordships House—a huge nationalised concern came to an inquiry and did not trouble even to present a case. Learned counsel said that he did not intend to bring any evidence. He claimed immunity for the members of the staff of the Iron and Steel Board because, he said, they ranked as civil servants. Then he went on to say—a quite improper statement—that he did not propose to have any figures produced to prove anything about the economic necessity but he would see that the Minister had those privately after the inquiry was closed. The man conducting that inquiry, armed with powers of subpœna, never said to him, "Are you going to produce any evidence?"
By a strange coincidence, two days before I raised that Question in your Lordships' House a Question was asked in another place. During the course of the evidence it was stated that unless the applicants were allowed to have planning permission £2 million of the taxpayers' money would be wasted, and a Question was asked in the House of Commons as to whether that was true. The Minister of Power answered and said:
"I have ascertained the facts. There would be no nugatory expenditure if the application was not granted."
It is a fair question to ask: why was not that evidence given at the inquiry? I have just cited these as examples. These cases are usually on the acquisition of land, and I can see no reason why the Government Department concerned should not come frankly before the inquiry and state its case, and the person presiding over that inquiry could then see that all the relevant facts were there. The inspector, unlike the chairman of the tribunal, has no authority to give a verdict; he can only recommend to the Minister.
In my view, the Council's powers of investigation must be increased. They must have authority, in my view, to call

161
for papers; they must have authority to summon witnesses, and they must report without delay upon all matters considered under Section 1 (1) (c) of the Act, and that report should be laid before Parliament. After the inquiry, in any investigation which the Council on Tribunals seeks to make, the Minister of the Department concerned who has given the decision against which there is objection should state his own case: he should not have it stated for him by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. Responsible journals of public opinion have been devastating in their criticism of the procedure adopted in the chalk-pit case, and I would say, I think quite fairly, that the consensus of public opinion seemed to think that it was wrong for the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to assume the position of defending his colleagues at all costs, laudable though that might be as a general principle. I must confess that this was particularly distressing, more than ever to those of us who hold the office of Lord High Chancellor of this country in such high esteem and the present occupant of the office in such personal affection. But with a proper procedure that would never have happened; and it should not happen in the future.
May I tell your Lordships, quite frankly, that I addressed the Question to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack last December, asking him if he would refer the case of the Oxfordshire ironstone inquiry to the Council on Tribunals; I asked him to consider whether I had made a prima facie case for such a reference. In three months' time the noble and learned Viscount gave his considered opinion, but that considered opinion was a detailed opinion that must have been given to the noble and learned Viscount by the Department concerned. One could not expect the noble and learned Viscount to have an answer to every query.
I hope he will not mind my saying—and I say it with great respect—that I think that on that occasion the noble and learned Viscount made a mistake. That was what the Council on Tribunals was there for. So I referred the matter to them myself. The Council must be given power to investigate and to report to Parliament, even, if necessary, right
162
up to the point of stating its view and giving its reasons why a wrong decision has been made. It is for the Council to give to Parliament its opinion and advice and to state its reasons; and it is for Parliament to take action, if it so desires, since it is to Parliament alone that the Minister is responsible.
There is one other question that is raised, and raised very pertinently, and that is the heavy burden of costs that is placed upon the ordinary citizen. If I might again cite as an example the North Oxfordshire ironstone inquiry, when the livelihoods of small farms and workers were in jeopardy, it cost £5,000 of the ratepayers' and private individuals' money to fight that case, a case which it could be argued should never have been brought. Although counsel for the objectors made an application for costs, the inspector did not grant it.
I remember that in the course of the Second Reading of the Bill under which the Council operates the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor quoted the words of Magna Carta, that justice cannot be purchased. But justice is purchased to-day if one can afford in cases such as this to brief counsel. What chance does the ordinary impecunious citizen stand against the might of Government Departments with taxpayers' money, nationalised industries with taxpayers' money, to brief leading counsel and juniors to get what they want? I believe that there should be in this code of procedure some means by which an appeal can be made to the courts if an application for costs has been refused in the case of these statutory inquiries. I have finished with statutory inquiries.
There are only two cases to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention in the operation of administrative tribunals. I think that, by and large, we can say that tribunals have operated well. They have operated well because of the independence of the chairmen, and because a tribunal can give a verdict; and in the majority of cases there is an appeal to the courts on questions of law. But what I feel is that consideration should be given to whether or not, in all private cases, there should be an appeal to the courts on questions of fact and merit. As the Report points out in the case of the Rent Tribunal,

163
unless there is an, appeal on fact there is virtually no appeal at all.
If your Lordships will allow me—I will deal with it briefly—I should like to bring out the point which the Report makes on the question of discretionary inquiries. The noble and learned Viscount will remember that during the debate we had on Section 1 (1) (c) he said that the only thing he wanted to take out of the subsection was when the Minister thought it necessary to send down one of his people to interview one of the objectors and to discuss some matter with him. He did not want that to be considered to be an inquiry. It is within my recollection that he said, "But that is the only exception I want to make." When the Bill went to another place that clause was amended, and there were put into the Bill words to the effect that a statutory inquiry for the purpose of Section 1 (1) (c) was an inquiry which the Minister had a duty to carry out. When the Amendment came to your Lordships' House I do not think it was in any of our minds that inquiries upon the scale, as the Report cites, of the Oxford roads inquiry, which was an inquiry at large, would be classed as a discretionary inquiry and therefore outside the surveillance of the Council on Tribunals. I do not see any reason why discretionary inquiries, as well as any of the others, should not come under the jurisdiction (if I may use that term) of the Council.
I should also like to direct your Lordships' attention to two other points which I think are important they are on the question of what I might call departmental obstruction to the Council's carrying out its statutory functions. One concerns the procedure under the National Health Service Tribunal. The noble and learned Viscount will have it in mind, as will many of your Lordships. On this matter the Council said:
"Meanwhile, the duty Parliament has laid on us can be exercised only on sufferance."
The other point is of more importance. I can only draw your Lordships' attention to paragaph 48 of the Council's Report, which states that the Minister of Pensions was asked in another place what steps had been taken to ensure that Members of the Council, in recognition of their special duties, were enabled to retire with members of the National Insurance Local
164
Tribunals while they considered their decision. The Council add that in a Written Answer the Minister replied as follows:
"The answer to the first part of the question is 'Yes' and to the second 'None'."
The Council satisfies itself with the under-statement that
"It therefore appears that no further steps are to be taken by the Minister to enable the Council to fulfil their statutory duty."
I hope your Lordships will not think that the language I use is too strong when I say that that is a piece of arrogant ministerial insolence that ought never to be allowed by the Government.
I have delayed your Lordships too long, but I thought it would serve some purpose if I drew attention to public disquiet. I hope that I have not exaggerated in anything that I have said, and I hope that the Government, and all those whose responsibility it is, will see that the Council on Tribunals can fill that important rôle of the British equivalent of the Scandinavian Ombudsman. That depends not only upon the Government but upon the Council. Perhaps I may end by quoting one paragraph from one of the many leading articles that The Times has published on this matter. It is as follows:
"Responsibility as guardians of the public interest now rests with Lord Tenby and his colleagues. They will be looked to as the men who can insist on rules being laid down and kept to which will put the private citizen on a real and not a bogus equality with the bureaucrats. They must not allow themselves to be inveigled into accepting this or that privileged indulgence for Whitehall. Lord Tenby is likely to have a hard fight ahead of him. He may count in facing it on the widest public support."
My Lords, I beg to move for papers.
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure you will all agree with me in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and to say how indebted we are to him for giving us the opportunity of discussing the working of these tribunals in the whole context of administrative law. I think it would not be too much to say that the focus of attention in regard to these sort of matters which, in the eighteenth century and the time of general warrants and John Wilkes, was upon the courts themselves as the guardians of liberty, is now beginning to be put, at any rate to some

165
extent, on the Council on Tribunals. That is because, as the noble Lord has said, more and more the citizen comes into contact with the Government, and indeed with the law, through administrative provisions in Acts of Parliament rather than through the ordinary administration of the Common Law.
Therefore, it seems to me valuable that we should have an opportunity of discussing these matters against the background of the useful reports which the Council on Tribunals are now publishing. I hope that we shall have further opportunities of doing so as these Reports come out from year to year, because undoubtedly one of the most important things which we in this House can do at the present time is to keep these matters very much under review. As always, vigilance is the safeguard of freedom in these matters.
I believe that even more than inquiring into the actual work which the Council has done over the two years and more that that body has been in existence, it is necessary to inquire into the general problem of the scope of its work, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has been doing, and to discuss whether the powers conferred upon the Council are wide enough and whether it is possible effectively to extend them—which is not at all an easy field of inquiry; because we have to remember that the system of administrative law in this country is a creature of comparatively recent development, at any rate in the mature or maturing form in which we now have it, and that it has grown up very much ad hoc, so that in all kinds of ways it is anomalous. The work of the administration which enforces it is also marked by quite a number of anomalies.
The method of administering this branch of the law has been, on the whole, completely unscientific. The control which has been exercised over it (if I may
say so, almost in parenthesis) by the High Court of Justice has been in a sense sporadic. Certainly, it has been marked by an extraordinary complication of procedure and in regard to the law it has been an exceptionally expensive affair which has not encouraged the ordinary citizen to enlist the help of the courts. Nor when, from time to time, he takes his financial courage in his hands and has recourse to the courts
166
does he find on the whole that their assistance is sufficiently effective to give him what he, at any rate, regards as justice or, indeed, to allay the widespread public uneasiness which undoubtedly exists. I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is right when he underlines that particular element in the situation.
The machinery at the disposal of the High Court, derived as it is from an earlier age, and for the control of very differing types of authority, is not really adequate to the tasks imposed upon it and it has always seemed to me, as it did to a famous predecessor of the noble and learned Viscount—Lord Haldane—that it was really time we took stock of the situation and tried to devise a more scientific and up-to-date system. I believe it was the realisation of this which led the Franks Committee to recommend the setting up of new, more effective and more economical machinery within the scope of the Council of Tribunals, the works of which we are discussing this afternoon. This was not in any sense to solve this problem, of course, for it is altogether bigger than anything the Council can do. But it does pursue a very typical English method of easing the shoe where it pinches particularly badly.
The Council have very limited powers and it is no good expecting from them very radical solutions of these problems. But within the severe limitations of their potentialities, which are fixed by the Statute which sets up the Council, the Council, it seems to me, as it seemed to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, have the possibility of doing some very useful work. Indeed, I believe they have already done a good deal. In their Reports (one of which fortunately came out just in time for this debate) the Council have pointed out a number of anomalies. It is not very clear how far those have been cleared up, since the time is short; but one is hoping that the noble and learned Viscount or another speaker for Her Majesty's Government will be able to tell us whether some of the anomalies pointed out in the Report have been or are in process of being cleared up. That this has, to some extent, been done appeared from Answers to Questions which have been put in another place.

167
I suggest that it is our job this afternoon to have that side of the matter very much in mind and to press the Government to give us clear and sincere answers in regard to these particular aspects of the problem. In the first place, of course, there has been a good deal of grit in the machinery of administrative law. There has been no kind of uniformity in the rules of procedure and this has led to a good deal of heart-burning and to numerous anomalies; and the job of providing uniform rules is one of the tasks which the Council have been given to get on with. I believe their first Report showed that a very useful start had been made on that work, and it seems clear enough from the second Report that they have been getting on with that work. Of course, they can go only some way with it. It is not a job which can be done quickly. But it seems to me that, so far as the work has gone, the Council are deserving of our congratulations and thanks. On reflection it seems astonishing that in the past, over the twenty, thirty or even fifty years during which this administrative law has been building up, it should never have been the business of anyone in Government to see that this was done before. We can only express gratitude that at last, in 1959–61, it is being attended to.
Next, and more important, is the supervision of the actual work of the tribunals and of the holding of the inquiries which are going on in hundreds all over the country all the time, and which some of my friends who appear before tribunals tell me is very uneven in character; while some are very good others are not so good. Clearly, the Council are taking this part of their job seriously and it is interesting to see that the members have been going up and down the country, sitting in at hearings and getting a really practical idea of what is going on, instead of relying on what they are told, which is always a temptation in a situation of this kind. Again I am sure it will be found that that is much the best and most effective way of handling this problem.
On the whole the Council seem to be satisfied with what they have seen, but there are in the Reports quite a few reservations. Unfortunately, those reservations are couched in very vague
168
terms, so that perhaps in the end one is left wondering a little whether or not they are pulling their punches. I hope not and I hope that we shall be reassured on that particular point. If I may make a criticism, one of the difficulties is that the Reports are written in what one might call typical "Whitehall English" of the kind that Sir Ernest Gowers used to criticise so effectively. It occurred to me that it would have been helpful if Sir Ernest Gowers had been given a preview of these Reports and had been able to put them into rather more terse and clear English.
It seems to me that in the Second Report the strictures on the work of some of the tribunals are distinctly stronger—may be because the Council were not satisfied that what they said in the earlier Report had been sufficiently attended to. I hope I am not taking too severe a view of it, but it seems fairly clear to me, at any rate, that in a minority of cases the Council feel that the situation is not really satisfactory. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell us if specific cases have actually been brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for the particular tribunal, or to his own attention, because that, probably, would be more valuable. We know that he has been taking a great personal interest in this work. I can quite understand that the Council do not wish to pillory in the pages of their Report any particular tribunal which they are not satisfied is operating well, but I think we ought to be assured that where they have in fact found grounds for criticism, then these criticisms have been brought to the attention of the proper authorities in detail, so that action can be taken; and that where weaknesses have been found they can and are in fact being remedied.
Now so far so good, and no doubt some civil servants will think that so much good is good enough, and will be content that the whole matter should rest at that point; but, of course, this was only a rather minor aspect of the matter from the point of view of the Franks Committee. The Franks Committee wanted to go a good deal further and to have matters dealt with by the Council which were basic to the whole problem which they had been set up to inquire into and to report upon. It seems to me that the real object of the Franks

169
Committee was to reassure the public, who were suspicious that these inquiries were camouflage. The Committee themselves found nothing very much wrong, but they also found that the people of England as a whole had formed a very different view.
We had had a long period during which Whitehall had been denounced by very eminent judges. We all remember the late Lord Hewart's book, The New Despotism; we had had Crichel Down, and we had had all the events which had led to the setting up of the Franks Committee. It is a view commonly held by the ordinary man in the street that civil servants are avid for power. Lord Hewart had told them that that was so, and the sort of things which happened at Crichel
Down persuaded them that Lord Hewart was right. They therefore took the view that these inquiries were very often just camouflage, in order to make people think that justice was being done, but that the real decisions had often already been taken in bureaucrats' offices in Whitehall, and that the whole decision had been "cooked" from the start.
My Lords, that is not the sort of view which I have ever taken of this problem. I do not myself believe that civil servants are at all avid for power. I think civil servants are a very hard-working and able part of the community, who are concerned to get their job done—one of the most important jobs that any part of the community has to do in the modern, complicated State. But undoubtedly, in the course of getting that work done, the less interference there is with them the easier it is for them to get on with the job and some of them have undoubtedly, from time to time, behaved in a way which is perhaps not so scrupulous as we should all like it to be. That was what the Franks Committee were anxious to safeguard against as far as possible. It was for that reason, I think, that an independent tribunal with adequate powers was set up, for such a tribunal could show up that sort of conduct if it in fact occurred: and provided it had adequate powers of inquiry, and power to have all the matters which were relevant brought before it, the setting up of such a Council on Tribunals would be likely to prevent the very happening of conduct of this sort.
170
When the proposals to set it up were brought before Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has pointed out, it was not found to have a very good set of dentures, and your Lordships insisted on more teeth being put into its jaw, if one may put it that way—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, deserved our thanks for acting as a very capable dentist on that occasion, and for taking a particularly active part in tightening up the Bill. To-day, one of the main points with which we are concerned is whether the Government have not been doing their best to pull out some of the teeth which we put in on that occasion: fortunately not painlessly, because the reaction of the Council has been a pretty quick one, which shows that the nerve has been touched. I am sure we all hope that they will continue to react strongly to the tooth-pulling process which seems to have been going on.
This brings me to the Buxton case, which seems to me to be a test of the sincerity of the Government in regard to this matter—perhaps the acid test. What happened in this chalk-pit case? It is so familiar that I do not propose to go over it. What happened from Major Buxton's point of view was that he gave his evidence and called his witnesses at a public inquiry, and thought that he had gained a victory. If it had been in a court of law, then he would have gained a victory. But then he saw it snatched from him behind the doors in Whitehall. My Lords, it seems to me that the attitude of the Government in regard to this case has been thoroughly insincere. If the Government had said, "It is our policy that there should be ample chalk or lime for agricultural purposes, and the amenities of the people who live in Essex must give way to that policy", then I, at any rate, would have respected them, because the policy of the Government, which they have been put into power to carry through, must be the essential thing throughout these problems.
Whenever the recommendations of an inspector are contrary to the clear policy of the Government, most of us, I am sure, would not in any way blame the Minister in question for overriding the report of his inspector: but, of course,

171
Ministers have never taken that particular attitude in this case. What they in effect said, sitting in Whitehall and consulting other experts behind doors, was, "We are satisfied that on this question of amenities the inspector, who spent days down there going over all the land, listening to the expert witnesses who were called before him, listening to them being very carefully and stringently cross-examined, was wrong, and that the people who had never visited the place and never been called at the inquiry, who wrote opinions on bits of paper which passed backwards and forwards between one Ministry and another in Whitehall, were the people who were right." That is the sort of thing which entirely confirms the suspicions which the general public had and have as to the way these things are done, and really, in a sense, makes the whole of what one would regard as the major activities of the Council on Inquiries almost a footling and futile procedure.
All that the noble and learned Viscount has said in defence of the Minister of Housing, in my view, has just deepened the suspicions of the public. It is sometimes almost a trap to have a great advocate at one's call. It encourages people to take up a position which is obviously an indefensible one, because they say: "Well, we have Mr. So-and-so, and he is one of the ablest men, if not the ablest man, at the Bar, and he will persuade the jury"—or the judge, as the case may be—"that we have a good case, although we know perfectly well we have not". It is perhaps unfortunate that the noble and learned Viscount, whose astonishing ability in matters of this kind is well known, has been relied on, so to speak, by the Minister of Housing to pull his chestnuts out of the fire in this way.
We have all heard on numerous occasions—and I feel a little diffident about using the phrase again—that justice must not only be done, but must be clearly and manifestly done. It seems to me, and must certainly seem so to Major Buxton, that not only has justice not been done in his case, but that it has clearly and manifestly not been done. It would have been so easy, if this sort of line of action was going to be taken in the Ministry, to have reopened this inquiry and put these people, these technical civil servants
172
from the Ministry of Agriculture and from the Ministry of Housing, into the box and let them give their views about this matter in public, and subject themselves to cross-examination—that very powerful weapon which has not, so far as anyone here knows, ever been used to check upon the evidence which these people gave to the Minister, and upon which the Minister took action in overthrowing the report of his inspector.
The whole of what has gone on in Whitehall has, as is always the case, been wrapped up in secrecy and in equivocation. Where, for example, is all the
correspondence which must have passed back and forth between the Council and the Minister, and the Council and the noble and learned Viscount, which obviously ought to be made public so that we know what has been said? When questions were put only a week or so ago (perhaps it was a little more than a week or so ago) in another place, the Prime Minister himself said—actually, I think he slipped up—that the correspondence had been made public. So far as I know, it has not; but the mere fact that the Prime Minister himself said it had shows that he felt that it was reasonable and right that it should be made public. If that is so, surely that ought to be done.
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount's heart is in the right place with regard to this matter. He showed that during the discussions which were held when the Franks Committee Report was being debated here, and when the Bill to set up the Council was before your Lordships. His heart is in the right place, on the side of justice; but here, as has been very aptly said in the current number of Public Law, that important and admirable British journal of administrative law, in the debates on this case in your Lordships' House he has been wearing his ministerial hat and not his judicial wig. That seems to me to be a very apposite view of the matter.
My Lords, I should like to finish my speech by quoting from the editorial comment on the noble and learned Viscount's speech in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think brought this matter up before. The editor says:
"Does not the Lord Chancellor see that his argument sounds completely unreal to the ordinary complainant? If the only question

173
was one which was apt for extensive examination at the inquiry, then that examination and the recommendation based on it should surely be accepted. Everyone agrees that the Minister may properly not follow his inspector's recommendation for reasons (such as policy) not apt for examination at the inquiry. But the inquiry must and will appear farcical (and no earnestness on the part of the Lord Chancellor can prevent this) if the evidence of experts A, B and C at a public inquiry, with rights of cross-examination, is accepted by the inspector and then set aside, because of the evidence, on the same point, of experts D, E and F, which is given in private and not open to examination. Perhaps the inspector ought not to be required to make any recommendation but merely to collect the evidence. Perhaps his report ought not to be published. Perhaps there ought not to be any public inquiry at all. Any of these solutions would be more logical than a procedure which looks like a clumsy façade to conceal the reality of Departmental power."
My Lords, that seems to me to sum up the matter very succinctly and in a forthright way. It seems to me that unless the Council on Tribunals can get some reasonable answer and some satisfaction from the noble and learned Viscount and from the Government in regard to these matters, it will lose that confidence which it must have if it is to do a good job of work in the interests of justice and of the public in this country.
4.8 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, this is a very important subject, and I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his classical disquisition on this matter. I will confine myself here to the question of planning appeals and the subject of compulsory purchase. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that rules have been drafted for inquiries in connection with planning appeals and inquiries in connection with compulsory purchase by local authorities. I am not completely conversant with Parliamentary procedure, but I hope that when these rules have been finally settled they will be laid before Parliament in order that they may be properly considered.
In the first place, will your Lordships allow me to refer to the old and rather dreary subject of the method of appointment of inspectors and other persons who are required to hold inquiries? There is a feeling that the inspector and other people appointed to hold inquiries should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department and not by the
174
Minister. It is the old story not only of justice being done, but of its appearing to be done. I make no criticism of any inspector or of any Government Department in this connection; I have no doubt that they all act perfectly fairly. But, unfortunately, people appearing at such inquiries might think that an inspector appointed by a Minister does not enjoy that degree of independence which is essential to the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Another point, which I hope is dealt with by the draft rules, relates to what is known as "discovery of documents". It is submitted that a local planning authority should be obliged to provide a list of the documents to which it will refer at the hearing and should be obliged, on request of any parties interested, to produce and provide copies of any documents and plans relevant to the matters which are the subjects of inquiry. And, conversely, it is only fair to say that a local planning authority ought to be entitled to call upon the appellant, and any person who has indicated his intention to appear, to provide a list of the documents and plans to which he intends to refer at the hearing and to produce and provide copies.
Another point relates to answering questions by a Government Department. I understand the position to be that a representative of a Government Department cannot be called upon to answer questions directed to matters of Government policy. On the face of it, this appears to be a highly desirable form of restriction. However, it might be carried so far that it would exclude ministerial directions which, strictly speaking, are not in the nature of Government policy. This is a matter upon which I should like some information.
Although I have been speaking about planning appeals, I may say that exactly the same observations relate to the draft Rules which are being prepared in relation to the compulsory purchase of land by local authorities. Finally, I have been asked to mention a matter in connection with agricultural land tribunals and the discovery of documents. It is submitted that the procedure of the discovery of relevant documents should be the same as that in ordinary court actions. These are only a few and rather sketchy points, but I know that your

175
Lordships' House abounds in veritable Justinians, who know a great deal more about this and every other subject than I do. With these few observations, I will resume my seat.
4.12 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, your Lordships are dealing this afternoon with an important new experiment in our constitutional system, the Council of Tribunals, set up to safeguard the individual against the State, against the Government Departments, in these days when the growing power of the Departments is an anxiety. When the Bill, which is now the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, was before your Lordships' House I ventured to describe it as a Bill of Rights—not the whole Bill of Rights, but the first chapter—because there are three chapters in this Bill of Rights.
The first chapter deals with tribunals—that is, the bodies that deal with what I may call justiciable disputes, disputes as to the right and wrong between an individual and the State: how much a man is to have as a pension if he is invalided during war service; how much industrial injury benefit is he to get; how much National Assistance he is to get. All these matters go before tribunals, which are now part of our regular judicial machinery, but not staffed by judges or by courts—staffed by tribunals. That is the first chapter. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack did a great deal in initiating the Franks Inquiry and this Act. So far, much has been done.
There are two further chapters needed to our Bill of Rights. The second one is as to inquiries, inquiries where there is a great deal of what I might call justiciable matter—finding out the facts in a matter where the eventual question is one of a policy decision by a Minister, such as a planning appeal. This was almost left untouched in the 1958 Act. It has to be worked out by the rules procedure.
The third chapter, not touched at all, is what I might call maladministration: bad administration, misconduct by a Government Department or its officers, where it is accused by an individual of wanting in fair play, such as in the Crichel Down matter, or of giving a con-
176
tract to one person or of favouritism to another. Misconduct by officials, maladministration, was the whole motive which led to the setting up of the Franks Inquiry, but it was excluded from their deliberations because they already had enough to do. Dealing with accusations by the public against Government departments and their officers, the third chapter of the Bill of Rights, has not been touched. To some extent, the tribunals and inquiries were dealt with in the last Parliament and I was hoping that in this Parliament we could have dealt with maladministration.
If I may, I will deal first with the chapter on tribunals. May I say that the Council on Tribunals, from their Reports, have done a really magnificent job in seeing that the rules of procedure will be governed by the rules of ordinary fair play? And with reasoned decisions having to be given for appeals already made, if need be to a higher tribunal, and on points of law to the courts, there is very little now wanting in our system of tribunals. On this chapter, I have only one matter to raise—and it was raised by the Council themselves; that is, that they are confined to tribunals which have been actually set up. There are a large number of decisions still taken by Departments and Ministers which ought to be the subject of tribunals and which are not, and the Council ought to be authorised to consider whether some of these decisions ought not to be put before the tribunals.
Let me give your Lordships only two instances. One simple and homely instance is where the parents of a child, it may be a handicapped child or an ordinary one, wish to select a certain school for him, but the local education authority say that they do not approve of their selection, because it will be too expensive to send their child there or because in some way they do not consider the school suitable. Such a dispute between parents and education authority is decided by
the Minister or by his Department on paper. Ought not that to go to a tribunal for decision? At present, the Council of Tribunals cannot do anything with it.
Let me give another, a commercial, example. It concerns a cotton manufacturer who wanted to instal in his factory new machinery which was to

177
come from Germany at a cost of £150,000. If this machinery was technically superior to anything we could make in this country, it could be imported duty-free, but if we had equally good stuff here then he had to pay duty on it. The machinery manufacturers here said that they had machinery just as good. The issue to be decided was whether or not it was as good. Let us see what the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said in another place when he came to deal with this matter. He said:
"Very often the Board of Trade have to decide cases where the makers and importers do not see eye to eye and it is the duty of the Board of Trade, which has no axe to grind in this matter, to adjudicate on these difficult questions. It is an unpleasant duty and one which, for my part, I would gladly shed."
There is a decision which is very suitable for a tribunal. But the Council on Tribunals has not any place in saying that it should go before a tribunal; it is still with the Minister. So on this first chapter which is on tribunals I would suggest (it is rather indicated in paragraph 31 of the second Report) that the Council on Tribunals should have the power to say that certain decisions of Departments should not be made within the Department, but should be made by an independent tribunal. There I leave the chapter on tribunals.
Next I come to the chapter which I may call the chapter on inquiries. As I said, there were only four or five lines in our 1958 Act about inquiries. But, indeed, the method was dealt with then for inquiries on a Governmental circular, saying how inspectors would behave. How glad we were that they were to give a Report; that the Report was to be made available to the parties; and, in addition, that if there was any new evidence given to the Minister after the inspector's report it should be made available to the parties! So was the Government circular. But, in truth, there have been two cases, at least, as your Lordships will know, which have given grave anxiety about the procedure at inquiries.
Under the 1958 Act rules of procedure are to be settled by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Council. But in regard to these inquiries I would point out two weaknesses in the present rules that need to be remedied. First, who is an aggrieved party? Who can
178
complain of one of these decisions? Take the case of Major Buxton, who had his farm and his animals near to land where a chalk-pit was going to be opened. He said that the working of the chalk would affect the wellbeing of his animals and livestock. Was he a party aggrieved? He went to the courts of law, and the Judge said that any ordinary person would think he was a party aggrieved, but the judge held, under the legal decisions, he was not a party aggrieved because he had not what is called a "legal grievance". That case was not taken further. I believe that recently the Privy Council have widened the meaning of "party aggrieved" so as to include a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which is prejudicial to his interests. If we depart from the old narrow definition (as I hope we have done), then a "party aggrieved" means, for instance, a person like Major Buxton, whose interests are prejudicially affected, and interested bodies. That is the question as to who can appear at these inquiries.
But the point on which more emphasis has been placed in regard to this chalk-pit case, as it is called, is that after the inquiry was held by the inspector and he reported in favour of Major Buxton and the applicant, consultations were held by the Minister with another Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Let me say one thing in favour of what was done in 1958. Nothing of what happened would have been known but for the steps which this House took then. It is only now that we have reasoned decisions that we know what has happened. So we did a very good thing in getting as much information as we have. But now comes the question which has been raised as to how far the Minister can take advice on expert matters, on matters of fact, as distinct from evaluating the weight of evidence.
It was my duty when I was the Judge hearing appeals from pension appeal tribunals to consider this very matter, and Mr. Parker (as he then was) argued many of the cases before me. I should like to give your Lordships an illustration of how we decided it. There was a naval captain who at the age of 66 rejoined the Navy for his service during the war. He was subjected to great anxiety and

179
worry and then suffered from a severe disease of the eyes, glaucoma. When he put in his claim for his pension it was supported by expert evidence of naval doctors and specialists that this disease would be affected by worry. But the Ministry said, "No"; they did not think glaucoma was affected by his war service. But they called no evidence.
The only material that they had for rejecting it was the advice of the medical member of the tribunal. Rightly or wrongly, it was held by the court over which
I had the honour to preside that that was not admissible. It was not merely the evaluation of or giving advice on the weight of evidence: the medical member was not merely doing that, but was giving his own expert opinion without the party having an opportunity of commenting upon it. So the captain was awarded his pension. If the principle in that case (it was the case of Starr v. Minister of Pensions, 1946) were to be applied in the case of Major Buxton, there might 'be room for the opinion which the Council themselves expressed. One does not know their view until one sees it in the Annual Report. They expressed the opinion that:
"Prima facie it appeared to us that Major Buxton's feeling of injustice might well be justified".
So it is vital in this second chapter of the Bill of Rights, in rules of procedure for inquiries which are to be submitted to the Council on Tribunals, that all those things should be put right so that there should be fair play. That is all that is needed but it is what one expects: fair play in the conduct of these inquiries.
May I say that I should like to go further? The powers of the Council in regard to inquiries are far less than those in regard to tribunals. They are entitled to hold tribunals constantly under review. They have no power, however, and no right to hold inquiries constantly under review, but only in such matters as may be referred to them or such matters as may be brought up specifically on occasion. I should like to see the Council on Tribunals have power to keep inquiries constantly under review and to deal with the procedure; and, indeed, not merely confine themselves to a Report which we only see annually, but make reports (the Act contemplates it)
180
to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor or another Minister at the time. Surely it is more effective that this House should be able to see the report at the time, than to have to wait until it is commented on in the Annual Report. So there is room for great improvement in the second chapter.
What about the third chapter, maladministration, as in the case of Crichel Down, which set the whole thing into being, and about which we have done nothing? When Government Departments or their officers go wrong occasionally (it does happen, although not very often) and there are complaints against them, if they allot one contract unfairly or if they allot land as in the case of Crichel Down, what remedy is there for the citizen? The only remedy at the moment is by Private Questions in your Lordships' House or in another place, by a Motion on the Adjournment or by an ad hoc inquiry specially set up as in the case of Crichel Down or of the policeman, John Waters, of whom your Lordships may have read the other day. Is that machinery sufficient for the needs of the day? Is it not time we considered further machinery? I would not supplant the old well-tried ones, or necessarily go so far as the Scandinavian Ombudsman, but there is a parallel already, for the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the financial side, as I think my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said, puts the fear of Parliament into Whitehall. Perhaps even the Council on Tribunals, strengthened, could receive accusations of misconduct made against Government Departments and could deal with them. At the moment the Council has no executive authority and has no deciding authority. It deals only with procedure and ensures that there is a fair procedure in tribunals and inquiries. Its functions are only advisory. It is our champion, but it is like a David with a sling and no stones.
We need this third chapter—what I may call the "Crichel Down chapter" of the Bill of Rights—to be investigated and implemented. Those are the three matters. Whilst we are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the great work he has done on the first Bill of Rights, and to the Council on Tribunals for the work

181
it is doing on tribunals and inquiries, there is a great deal yet to be done before the rights of the individual are adequately safeguarded in these days of the omnipotent State.
4.32 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, my main purpose in rising to intervene in this debate is to draw attention to the responsibilities laid upon the Council on Tribunals in respect of statutory inquiries. These are referred to in paragraphs 18 to 22 and again in paragraphs 91 to 94 of the Council's Second Annual Report. To my mind, paragraph 91 is the most important, because after setting out the Council's powers under Section 7A of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act, 1958, they say this in the last sentence of that paragraph:
"We take this to mean that in suitable cases we have the power to consider the administrative procedures both before and after the inquiry."
My own experiences have convinced me that the Council have indeed a very important part to play in those directions. They are, of course, handicapped by the absence of the draft rules to which they refer in paragraph 93, but in the meantime the procedure to be followed in cases of compulsory acquisition of land under the Defence Acts is covered by the statement made in another place on March 6, 1959.
Anyone who, like myself, has been involved in one of these appeals will realise the truth of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in opening this debate—in a speech with which I find myself in complete agreement—about the difficulties and frustrations which face an appellant. Therefore I think I can best assist your Lordships' House in considering this matter by briefly recounting some of my own experiences which will reinforce all that has been said, not only by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but by all other noble Lords who have spoken.
I must at once disclose my personal interest, in that my wife and I are co-trustees for a very small estate of under 300 acres in Dorset, known as Ringstead Dairy Farm, which lies on the coast in Ringstead Bay, just East of Weymouth and to the West of Lulworth. My wife's uncle, the late Captain Ernest Lane, died in January, 1958, and left this portion
182
of his estate to our son, appointing my wife and myself trustees until the boy reached his majority. At the moment he is only eleven. On taking over as trustees early in 1958, we found that not only were the Air Ministry still continuing their war-time occupation of 130 out of the 278 acres, but they were giving serious consideration to acquiring permanently some 60-odd acres in order to erect some sort of installation for the United States Air Force. Whether it was radar or wireless was not clear at that time.
Despite the fact that this beautiful and hitherto unspoiled bay was within that part of the Dorset coast which had only quite recently been designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act as an area of natural beauty, we found that the Air Ministry had, in fact, already obtained the consent of the Dorset planning authorities, while in August, 1957, we were to learn that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had written on the 15th of that month—that is August 15, 1957—
"the installation would not gravely injure amenity as the site was in a relatively isolated hollow and was sheltered by the existing plantation."
In parenthesis I may add (and this becomes relevant later on) that at that time the Air Ministry and the United States Air Force were considering a different type of installation from that which appeared later. At that time it was what was called an ionospheric forward scatter station that was proposed. This comprised a large number of comparatively short masts; and the meadow in which these masts were to be erected is, in fact, the site of the ancient church and village of Ringstead.
Thanks to a subsequent change of plan, I am pleased to say, the Ministry of Works, with our glad consent, have now scheduled this particular part of Ringstead as an ancient monument. It is a beautiful spot, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, who knows intimately, and loves every inch of that lovely coast, has told me that it was from this spot that the last of the Roman legions sailed away from this country. This is the spot of which the Minister of Housing and Local Government said the amenities would not suffer by the installation of this ionospheric station! In short, my Lords, the pass had really been sold

183
before my wife and I came into the picture as trustees.
It is very difficult to find out exactly what was going on during these critical summer months of 1957, and in any case it is not relevant to the case I am trying to make. But I can say this. On April 8, 1957, Captain Lane received a letter from his land agent in which the latter reported receiving a communication from the Regional Land Commission stating that the Commission now understood from the Air Ministry that they did not propose to acquire permanently the 67 acres on which to erect a number of radio masts. Captain Lane and his agent were thus lulled into a sense of false security until, in August, 1957, there was some Press publicity about the proposed wireless station at Ringstead. On August 30, 1957, Captain Lane's agent telephoned the Air Ministry, and an official of that Ministry told the agent that the first he had known of the station going ahead was when he heard it on the 9 o'clock news on the Saturday night; and he added that, so far as he knew, they were still waiting for plans. They were still waiting for plans when Captain Lane died in January, 1958; and they went on waiting for them for some time to come, as I shall show.
My wife and I, as trustees for a minor, were not able to accept this, to us, unsatisfactory state of affairs, and in April, 1958, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Air requesting further information. I pointed out inter alia that if indeed it was proposed to erect a wireless or a radar station at Ringstead, the 20 acres of amenity woodland included in the area were of no sort of use for that purpose. This correspondence with the Secretary of State dragged on until March, 1959, in which month my wife and I were invited to meet Air Ministry officials who would show us what was proposed. We met them. I have been a factory director for twenty years and I am used to dealing with drawings, but I have never seen such rough and unsatisfactory sketches produced as were produced at that meeting. There were also some photographs of a similar station in Greenland or some other remote spot.
It was very disturbing to us to find at this meeting that the United States Air Force had not yet provided the Air Ministry with final details of their re-
184
quirements, but it horrified us also to learn that the scheme, as then laid out, entailing cutting down a large number of trees at the seaward end of one of the woods. The only satisfactory feature of that meeting was that by this time the actual acreage required had fallen from 68 to 14. This was in part due to the American Air Force deciding to have a tropospheric station instead of an ionospheric station, and in part, I suspect, due to the pressure which we were bringing Ito bear on the Air Ministry. The actual site had by this time been transferred to another meadow which is not an historical monument.
Early in April, shortly after this meeting, the Air Ministry served notice to treat for 14 acres and there was some "to-ing and fro-ing" between them and our agents. On May 7, 1959, the Air Ministry wrote a letter to our agents in which they said:
"The Minister will consider any reasonable objections submitted in writing within"—
my Lords, within—
"twenty-one days from the date of this letter."
I mention this because a statement in another place laying down the procedure stated that objections should be submitted
"within a specified time, which will be not less than twenty-one days."
We have never found out under what powers the Ministry stated we had to answer "within" twenty-one days. We had to obtain a short extension of time in order to brief counsel, and our agents duly submitted our reasoned objections. On June 2, 1959, we submitted our reasoned objections and finally the inquiry sat on November 30, 1959.
Before giving your Lordships a brief account of the actual inquiry and its results, I must explain the difficulties under which the trustees and their advisers laboured in preparing their case, because to a large extent the same difficulties must face any private citizen who seeks to oppose a Government Department and, in particular, the Defence Department—more particularly a Defence Department acting for a foreign power. In the first place, we were dealing with a site for a new secret system of signalling, the details of which were known only to the technical experts of the Air Ministry—and how much they knew I do not know—and obviously

185
something must have been known to United States Air Force technicians, and even they were unable to provide us with final details.
Our professional advisers pointed out to us that in their opinion our objections would virtually have no chance of success unless it was possible to put forward at the inquiry alternative sites which would be as good as, if not better than, Ringstead for this highly specialised purpose. Therefore we had to try to find out from the Air Ministry what were the special requirements and why Ringstead was regarded as so suitable. This was a slow and painful process, like drawing teeth, I think partly because it had to be referred back to our American allies.
Meanwhile, we had found a consulting engineer familiar with this type of equipment—it was not easy, but we did find one—and on August 12 we wrote to the Air Ministry for the information we required to prepare our case. On September 9, and later that month, the Air Ministry sent us certain information but it was not until October 13 that the Ministry sent a written statement of their reasons for proposing to acquire the land. They would not accept our suggestion that their experts should collaborate with our consulting engineer in finding alternative sites, nor would they give us any information regarding the frequencies or wave-lengths on which the station was to operate. The consulting engineer whom we had retained fortunately had a good idea of the wave-lengths and frequencies which would be used, and he and our land agent toured the South Coast making many tests with suitable apparatus, as a result of which they located three or four possible alternative sites, which included Portland Bill.
Then, just before the inquiry, which was on November 30, the Air Ministry relented and provided details of wavelengths. This, of course, was too late to be of any real service to us. Thus, as your Lordships will see, we were gravely handicapped in the, preparation of our case, not only by the absence of vital technical information but also because without Air Ministry co-operation, which had been refused, our consulting engineer was very much restricted in his efforts to find alternative sites, because,
186
of course, he could not get entry into the many areas on the Dorset Coast which, as your Lordships know, are occupied by the Service Ministries.
Little wonder, then, that at the actual inquiry our suggestions for alternative sites were "shot down", in the words of the ultimate report:
"One, because of interference with Army activities; one, because the terrain was unsuitable; and one because the degree of damage to amenity at Ringstead although grave"—
they got round to admitting that the damage to amenity was grave—
"and to be deplored would not justify the much heavier financial outlay which would be needed."
The fourth suggested site of Portland Bill I will refer to later.
I must come to the actual inquiry itself which opened at the Guildhall, Weymouth, on November 30, 1959. The inspector, or "appointed person", which I believe is the correct name, to hold the inquiry was that eminent Queen's Counsel Mr. J. T. Molony, who was in fact appointed by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack. I have absolutely no quarrel at all with the way in which Mr. Molony conducted the inquiry and, if I may say so without presumption, I think it was absolutely admirable.
After nearly two days' hearing in Wey-month the inquiry adjourned until a further hearing could be arranged in London, because the inspector, or appointed person, wished to hear further legal argument about the Ministry's powers compulsorily to acquire land from private citizens for the use of the Armed Forces of a foreign power. This is where we had a justifiable complaint, because I think the Ministry should have come to the inquiry prepared to answer that question, for obviously counsel representing the trustees was going to press for information on that point, and in fact he did so. The Air Ministry counsel confined himself to saying that the Ministry's powers could not be precisely determined. For this reason we had to have a third day's hearing, which was more expense, and, for reasons of illness, including my own, the further hearing could not be held until February 12, 1960.
Thereafter we heard nothing for some time, but when I visited Ringstead in August that year, 1960, having heard nothing, I found contractors for the Air

187
Ministry already at work. I reacted very violently and very quickly. But shortly after that, a week or ten days later, in August, the manager of the hotel where we were staying brought me a copy of the local evening paper which had banner headlines, "American Wireless Station at Ringstead to go ahead. Lord and Lady Ampthill lose appeal". Two days later I received, forwarded from London, dated August 15, a letter from the Secretary of State for Air, and this letter, in accordance with the procedure announced in another place on March 6, 1959, gave a summary of the appointed person's findings. Among those findings was one that the proposed station would impose noteworthy damage on the amenities of Ringstead. So much for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's view expressed three years earlier!
The inspector made six recommendations of which I shall quote only three, because the others deal with roads, fences and such details in the event of acquisition. The three main recommendations were:
"A. The proposed compulsory purchase at Ringstead should not be proceeded with for want of legal power.
"B. That Portland Bill offers the opportunity of accommodating the United States Air Force installation without appreciable detriment.
"C. If the legal opinion stated at (A) is not upheld the compulsory purchase at Ring-stead should be proceeded with only if and when the possibility stated in (B) (i.e., Portland Bill), has been explored and negatived by an authoritative high level inter-Service decision."
My letter went on to say that the Secretary of State had decided that compulsory purchase should be proceeded with, that the Secretary of State had the necessary legal powers, and that Portland Bill was unsuitable because the available sites were too small and/or would obstruct and interfere with Admiralty establishments.
In view of this letter, all I felt I could do was to put down a Question for Written Answer in your Lordships' House seeking information about these legal powers claimed by the Secretary of State for Air, and this I did. It was during the long Recess last year. I gave the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack private notice of my Question and he, with great courtesy, gave me a full reply in advance of the
188
Answer which was printed in the record. It was, in fact, printed in the record of proceedings in your Lordships' House for October 25, 1960 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 225, col. 1085]. In the face of this reply, the trustees felt they must accept the decision. Moreover, they were not financially able to test the matter in the High Court. Nevertheless, my Lords, we have achieved something. The fenced area will be only about four acres, with a further three acres on the seaward side which is restricted; we cannot plant trees or build houses on it. This is better than losing 67 acres, including 20 acres of amenity woodland. But it has taken three years of hard fighting and it has cost a very considerable sum of money which the estate can ill afford.
In view of the terms of the inspector's report, or rather the Air Ministry summary thereof, which is all we have been allowed to see, we asked the Air Ministry for our costs or at least a contribution thereto. We drew their attention in particular to paragraphs 321 to 326 inclusive, and in particular 323, of the Franks Report. In due course we received a letter signed by an Assistant in the Solicitors' Department of the Air Ministry rejecting our application. Therefore, within the last few weeks we have referred this question of costs to the Chairman of the Council on Tribunals, for which reason I must say no more on this subject, though in paragraph 122 of the Second Report of the Council on Tribunals I think they rather expect that my submission to them may be only the first of many.
I apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House in giving an account of our experience in the Ring-stead case. I felt justified in doing so because I believe that this Ringstead inquiry was the first public one to be held under the procedure announced in another place on March 6, 1959. Therefore, in a sense we were the guinea pigs. I can only hope that it will be possible for the Council on Tribunals in time to clear away the frustrations and difficulties which we faced. To my mind it is very important that this detailed code of procedure should be introduced as soon as possible, because then, and only then, will it be possible for private citizens to have some check on their Ministries.
I have, by implication and possibly directly, said many hard things about the

189
Air Ministry and other Ministries involved, but I should like to say that now that work has started at Ringstead we have received the maximum co-operation from the Lands Department of the Air Ministry in an attempt to preserve the beauty and amenities so far as possible. They have succeeded in resiting the station slightly so that no trees will have to be cut down. For the same reason the Air Ministry have insisted that the two 120 foot masts should be brought down in sections. If they had not arranged that, we might have had to cut down something like 100 trees. For all this the local residents and we trustees are grateful. None the less, it is sad to see Ringstead Bay go the way of Tyne-ham and Lulworth and other lovely places on the Dorset coast. I beg to support the Motion so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
4.58 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, in another department of our way of life, and a very important department, too, when the last batsman comes to the wicket, it is an accepted doctrine that he is not expected to make many runs. There is another very comforting reflection that comes to me at this moment: that in that situation he is not supposed to last very long. Therefore, coming as I do at this moment in the debate, I could not pretend to supply anything new to the subject matter. However, I still should like to add just a few words—and they will only be a few words—if only by way of endorsement of many things which have been said by previous speakers, and notably by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who introduced this subject. I know that it is quite a conventional thing to congratulate the mover or introducer of the debate on the selection of the topic, but I think I voice the feelings of everybody in the House when I say that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is really to be congratulated with sincerity because of the importance of the choice of subject which he has made to-day. And I would add, for my own part, that I think he is to be congratulated also upon the manner in which he surveyed this wide field of administrative law, as he termed it, and put forward his various submissions.
190
It is always said, and I think with very great truth, that one of the great tests of the civilisation of any country is the way the laws of that country are administered; and that, of course, applies not merely to the High Court of Justice and to the magistrates' courts, but wherever judicial decisions are being made; and therefore it applies most notably in this wide field to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has drawn our attention. I think the heart of the matter lies here; that the subject matter for debate is,
"To call attention to the scope and powers of the Council on Tribunals and its operation."
I think the central and essential matter which is contained here is to see, in so far as it is humanly possible, that in all these tribunals (and there are now, I understand, over 2,000 of them; and the number is growing every year), and in the statutory inquiries, to which quite different considerations apply, there should be a procedure which not merely commends itself to the people who are brought into immediate contact with the tribunal or inquiry, as indeed Lord Ampthill in his survey of that particular case has shown us, but also commands the confidence of the general public. I think that can be achieved only if, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think, emphasised right at the outset of his speech, the decisions approximate to that thing that we call justice.
I am bound to say that I always use the word "justice" with some hesitation. The Royal Courts of Justice are in the Strand; but they are also called the Law Courts. In my judgment, there is a great difference between the settled law and the thing we call justice. I have quoted before, I think, in this House, but certainly on many occasions, because I feel that it is a most important thing to keep in mind, a saying of George Eliot:
"Who shall put his finger on the work of justice and say 'It is here'? Justice is like the Kingdom of God: it is not without us, but it is within us, as a great yearning."
Therefore, when I use the word "justice" I recognise all human fallibility; I recognise the different standards which are applied in different countries and in different places. But I think we all understand what we, in our English speech, mean when we say "Let us have justice as the supreme objective and the supreme attainment."

191
I am glad to think that in this Report, the Second Report on the Council on Tribunals, that element breathes through the whole of the text. I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Chorley speak about "Whitehall English". I sometimes think that he has a slight Whitehall complex, because I read through this document with the greatest interest—and, if I may say so with all modesty, I am a great lover of the English speech—and it did not strike me as being something that Sir Ernest Gowers would condemn. I should like to quote two passages on the immediate point that I am making. One is in paragraph 8, where the Report says:
"It seems probable that before long this work will be exceeded in volume by work brought to the Council by members of the public. If this proves so, it will show that there is indeed a need for an impartial body to handle complaints and to look constantly for ways of meeting the public demand for high standards of administrative justice."
In that language I can find nothing of which to complain. Then there is another passage to which I should like to call attention, in paragraph 21:
"Subject to these considerations, however, our general task in relation to inquiries is much the same as in relation to tribunals—to see that standards are applied which satisfy the ordinary person's sense of justice and that these procedures bear those characteristics of openness, fairness and impartiality which the Franks Committee laid down for tribunals and inquiries."
Again, I have no complaint with language of that kind, either from the point of English or from the point of good sense.
I do not know who compiled the document, but I, for my own part, should like to congratulate the compiler or compilers upon the production of this Report, for I think that it presents the problems which have to be met in the sphere of the tribunals and in the sphere of statutory inquiries, with great fairness, with great force. And it also, as I submit, in all its sentences, breathes that air of saying, "What we are concerned to do is to have such powers that we can produce the procedure that will produce the results which will be appreciated by those who are brought into contact with the tribunals or the inquiries, and by the general public at large."
It is a mistake to think that procedure by tribunals or inquiries is something
192
new. We are rather apt to think that it has all come into being because of the silent revolution of the twentieth century which resulted in that thing which we call the Welfare State. No doubt it is true that so much has been taken over by the State in recent years that it has become absolutely essential that some method should be provided whereby disputes between the citizen and the State should be successfully decided. It has always been the proud boast of the English judges, certainly since the Act of Settlement in 1701, that they have stood between the citizen and the State in order to see that there is no interference with the rights and the liberties of the citizen unless they are justified by law. I think exactly the same spirit is manifest in this Report with regard to the tribunal.
But the fact is that for many centuries the central Legislature has been delegating its powers. There was the great Statute of Henry VIII which gave the Commissioners of Sewers their immense powers—practically making them dictators. That delegated power lasted for 400 years, and even down to 1930 the modern commissioners of sewage and drainage boards acted on the authority of that great Statute to make their by-laws. So it is no new thing. In the eighteenth century, when the Commissioners of Excise were appointed, there was a great outcry, and Dr. Johnson himself referred to those worthy gentlemen the Commissioners of Excise, as
"Those wretches hired by those to whom the hated excise tax is paid."
They have survived, too; and although they are not what I would call exactly popular heroes in these days, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, certainly so far as my knowledge goes, do their work very fairly indeed and with immense efficiency.
But the great revolution—almost greater than the revolution of the twentieth century which we have lived to see—was certainly the revolution of the nineteenth century. After 1832, it is amazing to think of the immense field of private and public matters—public health, child welfare, factories, criminal law: almost every subject one can think of—that was dealt with by the Parliaments of the day. We hear in modern days how difficult it is to find Parliamentary time to pass some small measure

193
which is so much needed—for example, an amendment to the National Parks Act, and matters of that kind. It is amazing to think how the Parliaments of the nineteenth century managed to get through all their work. So it would be wrong of us to think that this situation of to-day is novel or new.
The all-important thing is that it is now recognised almost universally to be essential. There was a time when the delegation of powers to tribunals was regarded with very great suspicion, particularly in legal circles. But the work of the tribunals—and I must add the work of the Council on Tribunals—has been such that I believe everybody is pretty well satisfied that this particular form of activity has come to stay and can be made to be a most beneficial thing.
There are just one or two matters to which I would refer in a sentence or two. This tremendous interest which is referred to in the Report by members of the
public is, I think, all to the good. I believe the more people are interested in the administration of the law, in whatever form it takes, the better it is; because the law ultimately rests upon the pressure of public opinion and therefore I feel that that is good. But the danger I fear is that it may so grow in volume that the present system of part-time members may become really rather difficult. I should be exceedingly sorry, for my part, to see any departure from part-time members at the present time. It may, of course, become necessary but, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in his speech, it would be a very great pity for the thing to become professionalised at this stage. I agree that it would.
The example of magistrates is a very wonderful example. When we speak of the administration of the law we are apt to think of the High Court, the assizes, the Old Bailey, and all that. But the real administration of iaw takes place in the magistrates' courts and it is essential that the spirit of justice in those courts should be in the tribunals, and I hope very much that the part-time membership will not be dispensed with—certainly not at the moment. I believe that if the procedure of the Council is followed (and it is obvious from the Report that it will be) great attention must be paid, first of all, to the quality
194
of the members we are to have on the court of first instance. We do not necessarily need people who are expert in some particular field, but people who are knowledgeable and wise and have the gift of judgment. We always used to say that a High Court Judge needed a little law but he needed more than anything else a great deal of common sense; and I think that that is certainly true of tribunals which come so closely in contact with ordinary men and women as these 2,000 tribunals do. Therefore the greatest possible care should be taken to see that our court of first instance, to which the public first come, shall be of the highest possible quality.
In that respect I cannot emphasise too much the necessity of having the right chairman. I feel that that is an immensely important matter. May I refer to a little past history? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has left the Chamber, but he would recall that there were appointed certain chairmen—the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, was one—dealing with very difficult topics before the Advisory Committee on Regulation 18B. All kinds of difficult questions arose and it was because of men like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, that that very difficult task was able to be accomplished without any public unease as a result. Therefore in these matters affecting so closely the lives, conditions and well-being of ordinary people I think it is very important that the chairman should be a man of outstanding ability. Emphasis has been laid in this Report on the important part taken by the Clerk. Clearly, in one or two instances the part played by the
Clerk was regarded by the Council as being too predominant. But speaking of the scope and powers of this notable Council I am sure that the gravest attention will always be paid to the quality of that first court.
Then for my own part I always think there ought to be a court of appeal, certainly upon questions of fact. I have brought with me to-day a short quotation which I should like to read to your Lordships. It really goes back to that revolution of the nineteenth century about which I spoke, Lord Justice Bowen (who later became Lord Bowen, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary) in 1893 made
some observations which I think are very

195
apposite to-day on this matter of appeals. There was a case (and the facts do not really matter now) where some parish overseers had tried to prohibit an appeal to the courts on an assessment they had made to the poor rate. When it got to the High Court, Lord Justice Bowen said this:
"In a free country the very essence of such a system must be that there should be an appeal to some body who can say whether what these officers are doing is just. If no appeal were possible 1 have no great hesitation in saying this would not be a desirable country to live in where every parochial officer might do as he liked in the matter. It is quite true there is enough difficulty in appealing as it is but if there is to be no appeal at all the circumstances would be intolerable."
I think, therefore, there is no doubt that the ends of justice as I have tried to define them should be met and there should be, in addition to this carefully selected first court, an adequate and efficient court of appeal. In my opinion there should always be in the last resort an appeal to the courts of law on any point of law arising. No doubt the tribunals could be carried out by the writ of mandamus or certiorari, the ancient writs, but I think it is exceedingly important that the spirit which is manifest in this Report, which I think derives from our judicial experience in years past, should be maintained in the highest possible degree. Clearly, as this Report desires, the tribunals should have an appeal.
I think that is all I want to say about that, but I want to say just a word about the difficult matter of statutory inquiries. That is really very difficult and I appreciate every word that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, said. I hope what he said will be taken note of, as I am sure it will be, particularly by the Council themselves. As I see it, the difficulty is this. We are dealing with a state of affairs where the inquiry ordered by the Minister is a part of the Minister's discretion, a part of the making and forming of the Minister's discretion for which he is answerable to Parliament. It seems a hard thing to say, but I believe it is true to say that the Minister cannot hope to be an impartial person in the sense that a Judge is impartial. He cannot make an objective decision as a Judge can. In the long run as a Minister of the Crown he is a member of the Government and must do that which is in
196
conformity with the Government's wishes and the policy of the Government. In the long run it frequently becomes a matter of expediency as to what the Minister shall do. That is the grave difficulty.
I have felt that over the years in inquiries dealing with the National Parks. I remember that when the proposal was made to lift the waters of Ennerdale to provide water for the atomic factory at Sellafield, we, the Friends of the Lake District (of which I was President at that time), presented a most reasoned case and supplied the alternative sites where water could be obtained for those purposes. During the hearing, the inspector was obviously very much impressed, but the decision by the Minister was to turn down all our arguments, largely, I think, on the ground that the Government's policy was to support their procedure with regard to atomic factories at that time. But it is manifestly a situation of very great difficulty, and I agree that the suggestion which has been made—that instead of an inspector going down there should be some perfectly impartial person—is certainly worthy of consideration.
I must confess that this afternoon I was a little astonished at the freedom with which the case of Major Buxton was discussed, and I kept looking at this Order Paper, which refers to
"…the scope and powers of the Council on Tribunals…"
I think that in another place (I do not mean the place we usually designate as "another place", but in a court of law) there might have been some question from the Bench as to whether certain matters were really relevant. Because in this very Report, while the history of the matter is set out (and some very strange history, I quite agree), it is also set out that after the inspector had heard all the evidence, and decided that the appeal should be dismissed—that is to say, that the original ban should be upheld—the Minister came in and said, "On the contrary, I allow it". That is a very difficult situation; and I think that something really will have to be done to try to meet what is admittedly a very awkward and very difficult situation.
My Lords, let me end by saying that I find it very difficult to work myself up into, I will not say a passion, but indignation about Whitehall, about "behind

197
closed doors", "bureaucracy", and language of that kind, because all the time there comes into my mind a picture, let me say, of the Minister of Housing, my good friend Mr. Henry Brooke. I happen to know how anxious he is in certain matters with which he is concerned to do that which is right and just according to the evidence before him. Therefore, all that I will permit myself to say this afternoon on the Major Buxton case is that it is a very curious situation. But the position being, according to this Report by the Council, that further discussions are going on between the Council and the noble Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack, I am quite content to leave the matter there. I content myself with pointing out how strange an anomaly it is that there should have been an inspector sent down, all the objectors giving their evidence before him, the inspector coming to a conclusion and the Minister—as he is entitled to do—turning it down and disregarding all the recommendations made. My Lords, I am afraid that I have kept you a little longer than I intended, and I apologise for it; but I am very glad to think that this matter has been raised, and I am quite sure that good will come from it.
5.24 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor replies to this debate I should like to make a short intervention, though I have just discovered that our Deputy Leader wishes to follow me. My intervention is simply on these grounds: that what we are trying to do in grappling with this subject is really to adjust the liberty of the subject, which everyone must be anxious to preserve, to the growing needs of the community as represented by the State, and it is in the achievement of that adjustment that our difficulties are bound to arise. In reading through these two Reports of the Council on Tribunals it seems to me that they have been given a completely impossible job. They are a body of persons engaged in all kinds of pursuits, able to give only of their spare time to deal with this problem. We are told in their First Report that they are required to supervise—"review", I think, is the word—the constitution and the working of over 2,000 different kinds of bodies. I say that if they were working full-time they could not discharge that job ade-
198
quately; and therefore we should not deceive ourselves into assuming that, whatever Reports finally come from this body, they can deal adequately with the subject. At best, they can only grapple with principles.
They are to be concerned with the procedure not only of tribunals but of all statutory inquiries; and I am perfectly certain that there will be a constant increase in the number of statutory inquiries as the work of the various Government Departments and the Government expands. The Reports make a clear distinction between the functions and the constitutions of tribunals and statutory inquiries, but I do not for one moment believe that the average man and woman in the country knows that difference. I believe that when they read of an inquiry being held by someone on behalf of a Minister they assume that in some way that body is analogous to a tribunal. The tribunal adjudicates after hearing evidence: the inquiry is advisory.
An inquiry is held on behalf of the Minister, and he must, in the nature of things, have the final decision. Just how many of the documents the Minister reads and just how many consultations he has before he reaches that decision, is something which I hope the Council on Tribunals will say more about; but I am not one of those who believe it is possible to carry on the functions of government and, at the same time, reveal all that takes place inside the mechanism of the administration of Government. Nothing has been said in the First Report about inquiries. I say "nothing": they are mentioned by name, but there is no description of anything that they are doing. We are told in the Second Report, twelve months after the First Report was issued, that the Council are still awaiting the draft rules of procedure—and this, twelve months after their First Report was issued.
After those general observations I want to refer briefly to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, which is mentioned in the Report. This body deals predominantly with workpeople and with questions upon which many workpeople feel very deeply. It deals with industrial injuries, for example, which were formerly dealt with by courts of law. They are now dealt with by the

199
tribunals set up under the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The Council on Tribunals makes the significant observation—significant to me, at least, as a trade unionist and one who has had a good deal of contact with the minds of working men—that the officer of the Ministry sits adjacent to the members of the tribunal. Small as that may seem, perhaps, to some people who can draw distinctions and have clearness of mind and no prejudice on this subject, the Council took the view, which I personally very much endorse, that that procedure may easily give the impression that in some way the officer is a member of the tribunal which is really engaged in investigating an appeal against his judgment.
In paragraph 48 of the Second Report, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned at the outset, and which I did not recall after first reading the Report, with the same clearness as followed from his statement, something seems to me to be missing. I looked at paragraph 121 of the First Report with regard to this matter, and the text of it, in part, is this. It says:
"But in a few cases, and notably in the case of National Insurance Local Tribunals, the rules of procedure are so framed that for the purpose of arriving at their decision or discussing any question of procedure these tribunals are required to order 'all persons not being members of the tribunal, other than the person acting as Clerk to the tribunal' to withdraw from the sitting of the tribunal. The effect of this is to exclude entirely any Member of the Council and to deprive the chairman of the tribunal of any discretion to invite a Member of the Council to be present during discussion of these matters."
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quite properly drew attention to what had happened to that observation, and in paragraph 48 of the Second Report we find that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, when asked what steps he had taken, said, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned:
"The answer to the first part of the question is 'Yes' and to the second 'None'".
Now, what was the second "None" in reply to? The question was: what steps had he taken to ensure that members of the Council, in recognition of their special duties, were enabled to retire with members of the National Insurance local tribunals while they considered their decision? The Minister, in the Written
200
Answer which has been referred to, said:
"The answer to the first part of the question is 'Yes' and to the second 'None'".
I do not know, but I can hardly believe that such an abrupt and extravagantly official answer—for that is what it is—which gives no information to anyone, could be the whole of the case. There must have been some correspondence, some letters, some observation, between the Council on Tribunals and the Minister before that answer was given. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us whether such a communication took place, or whether in fact consultation took place, and, if so, the nature of that consultation. When one talks about the liberty of the subject, I really think that a Minister in Parliament who can so ride off on a subject of so much importance to many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our people, is sitting pretty tightly upon what we have in the past been glad to call the liberty of the subject.
5.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has been deprived of the privilege of being "last man in". Neither my noble friend who has just spoken nor I have given our names as possible speakers. In my own case, I had not thought I should be able to be here, and I was disappointed that I should not have the opportunity of saying something on this subject in which I have taken a very great interest in the past, and of which I have some little experience. The House has been deprived of more of the noble and learned Lord's speech than would otherwise have been the case. We were all charmed to hear him, and those of your Lordships who had the pleasure of hearing his discourses on the B.B.C. recently on "Seven Great British Advocates" will realise what we have missed.
The debate has ranged over a wide field, and we have had some very valuable contributions. I do not propose to go over those contributions in any way, except to say that I am quite certain that both the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the Chairman of the Council on Tribunals will have benefited from the debate we have had

201
here. For that, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for introducing the subject and for his constant interest in the question of tribunals and inquiries. Indeed, he has almost constituted himself as an unofficial Ombudsman, and we very much appreciate that.
The Report is a very helpful Report. It gives full information about what is being done in the field of inquiries, and it is rather startling to discover that last year no fewer that 122,000 cases were dealt with by tribunals, and that there were 5,700 statutory inquiries. Most of these statutory inquiries, by
the way, were dealt with by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I would inquire, in passing, though perhaps I should not, how many of these he has been able to deal with personally. Obviously, most of these inquiries are dealt with at a much lower level. Perhaps it is unfair to judge the Minister personally on the decisions which sometimes emerge, for which, of course, he has to take responsibility but about which, in most cases, he cannot possibly know anything. A good deal has been said this afternoon about the chalk-pit case. I do not propose to say any more about it than I have already said in the past, except to repeat that I wonder whether in fact, at the time the Minister gave the decision, he was aware of that case or was not aware of it. It is quite on the cards that he knew nothing about it, and I am bound to say that, at the time when it called for a decision, it did not seem to give rise to very vital questions of policy, or the possibility of public controversy, which arose, of course, very much later.
I propose to limit what I have to say to the subject of the 5,700 statutory inquiries, relating mostly to town planning appeals and to objections to compulsory purchase. I have no personal knowledge, as has my noble friend Lord Citrine, about the tribunals, and I cannot say, therefore, how they are conducted, but I am aware, and have had considerable experience, of the town planning appeals arid these objections to which I have referred. I should like to say, first of all, that I am full of admiration for the quality of the inspectors who conduct the inquiries. They are a fine body of men—I do not think there are any
202
women inspectors—and I have never heard the slightest criticism about the conduct of these inquiries, or even about the procedure at them.
I was a little distressed to hear the other day, when we were discussing the inquiry on Oxford's roads, the condemnation and the criticism of Sir Frederick Armer. He may be right or he may be wrong in his decision—this is not the time to discuss that—but in my view to criticise him personally for his decision was grossly unfair. He took an immense amount of trouble, and there is not the slightest criticism about the procedure or conduct of the inquiry. To criticise a man because you do not like his decision seems to me utterly wrong.
Incidentally, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that I think he was misinformed about the position of the inspectors. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will reply in more detail, but the Lord Chancellor has a considerable voice in the appointment of inspectors, and I understand that they cannot be dismissed without his authority. I think think that this should be better known. It is understandable that there might be some feeling of doubt if it is not clearly understood that the inspectors are really the voices of the Ministers. In fact, pan inspector's duty is to report to the Minister concerned and to give him all the information which, in the nature of things, he could not possibly ascertain for himself. Therefore, the inspectors are servants of the Minister. But it should be clearly understood that in conducting pan inquiry, everything is being done to ensure that the inspectors carry it out with independence and objectivity. And I am satisfied myself that they are successful.
Such criticism as has been given voice to has not been about the reports of the inspectors, or about the way in which inquiries have been conducted, but about what has happened to the reports of inspectors after they have been presented to the Ministers. We had a full debate on the problems that arise, when we discussed the chalk-pit case, and I do not wish to repeat at any length anything I have said. But the public are entitled to feel a little apprehension at the fact that decisions are inclined to be incalculable. Obviously, when an

203
inspector is reporting to a Minister and he is acting as the Minister's eyes and ears, it must be for the Minister to decide for himself what should be the decision. But normally one would expect that he would disagree with his inspector only on one of two grounds.
One ground is the question of policy. The inspector, looking at things purely as an issue on its own, might take one view. The Minister, looking at the broad question of policy, having a much wider overall picture, might feel justified in taking a different view. But is it not fair that those who appear before the inspector should be informed of that policy at the time? Is it fair to an appellant that he should go on making a case without being clearly notified of the policy of the Minister in relation to the particular matter before the inspector, so that he may be fully acquainted and be prepared to deal with it? Let me give one or two examples. It is the policy of the Minister of Housing and Local Government not to permit development within a green belt. That should be made perfectly clear at the outset. But it should also be made clear that there are possible exceptions, and that the Minister himself has recognised that there may be exceptions to this general rule. There is also the policy of discouraging the building of offices and factories in certain areas. That policy, and the limits of that policy, should be made abundantly clear at the time of the inquiry, so that the person who appeals should be fully aware of them.
The other ground on which the Minister may set aside the views of the inspector is that the recommendation of the inspector is against the weight of evidence. That is not a question of a Minister receiving new evidence to override the evidence which his inspector has had before him, but a question of considering the evidence which has come before the inspector and seeing whether, on that evidence, the recommendation of the inspector is justified. The Minister may call for advice on the significance of the evidence, but it is for the Minister, and for the Minister alone, to decide whether the weight of evidence is sufficient to justify him in overruling the recommendation of his inspector.
204
There is one other matter, on which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, obliquely touched, which I think is of some importance, certainly from the point of view of the outlook of the general public—that is, where the Minister is called upon to make a decision in a matter in which he has a departmental interest. In the normal case—say in a case where a local authority is seeking to acquire land compulsorily and an owner objects—the Minister can safely be relied upon to act as arbiter and to make a decision. But what happens in the case where the Minister himself is seeking to acquire land, or (as in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred) where the Minister is seeking to do something, there has been an inquiry and the Minister himself is called upon to decide.
When I was Minister of Town and Country Planning, I was myself in that position. I was responsible for designating an area of land which was to constitute the area of a new town. If there was an objection to that designation, there was a public inquiry. The inspector heard the objections and then reported to me. I was then called upon to decide. Well, it would be perfectly natural and understandable that one should have a bias in favour of a designation which one had oneself made. One would be more than human if one felt, at the end of the day, that a case had been completely made out for rejecting what one had already done. I believe that no such case ever was made, although the results of the inquiries were that in a number of cases particular areas were modified. But it is putting too great a strain on the objectiveness of an individual in an important case of this kind, or even in the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, quoted, to expect him always to be absolutely objective in his dealings.
Furthermore, even if he is (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, paid tribute to Mr. Henry Brooke, and I would pay the same tribute to him; I have worked with him for many years on the London County Council and I have the highest opinion of his integrity), it is perfectly understandable that the general public, who have a decision of his on a matter in which he has a personal interest, a decision which they do not like, should feel some kind of doubt

205
as to whether that decision was arrived at independently. I wonder whether it would not be possible (the Franks Committee did consider this) in cases of that kind for a decision to be given by somebody who has no departmental interest in the particular subject matter.
I want to refer quite briefly to two other matters. The first is the increasing complexity of these inquiries. Often they are in the nature of High Court actions, with expert witnesses on both sides, and it is increasingly difficult for an individual to appear on his own behalf, especially when he is confronted, as he may well be, with an array of learned counsel on the other side. Inevitably a person who has something at stake will have to employ a solicitor and counsel, and this can be very expensive because some of these inquiries range over several days. It seems to me unfair that the burden of cost should fall upon the person who appears. In some cases the objection may be a frivolous one; but in others, even when the decision goes against the individual, it is nevertheless quite proper that his objections should be heard and he should have a full opportunity of stating his case; and I feel that he should not be penalised for having done what is perfectly proper.
I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that there ought to be some machinery for defraying the costs of people who appear at an inquiry, quite properly, and put before the tribunal facts which ought to be put before them in order to arrive at a decision. It does not mean that in every case it would be right to award costs, but it means that this power should be exercised fairly freely in proper cases. The case quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, which was to my mind a perfectly legitimate case in which to make representations, would in my view be one where the party or his trustees should not be penalised.
The last point I want to make is one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—namely, the question of who, other than the actual parties to the appeal, is entitled to make representations. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, for the first time interested parties were given the
206
opportunity of being informed of an application and they can make written representations to the local authority. What happens to those representations they never know. They cannot even be certain that they are considered, because in due course the local authority give their decision to the person who has made the application but to nobody else. It is left to those who are accepted as interested parties to find out for themselves what has been the result, if any, of their representations.
Then we come to appeal, and here they are entitled to appear. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out, their status is a little equivocal. They can appear and make their statements, and I believe they can even call evidence, but they are not officially recognised as interested parties. I am not sure whether they are entitled to receive even the actual text of the decision or whether they have to find that out in some other way. But even if they get the decision, if they have a grievance and feel that the conduct of the inquiry is such as to call for the attention of the court, they have no right to appear before the court to make these representations. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is looking into this to widen the scope of those who are interested parties.
Obviously this cannot be extended to everybody, but I should think it would be quite possible to draw a clear line as between those who have a general interest and a public interest in the matter, such as some of the amenity organisations, which could not be entitled to go to the court and claim to be interested parties, and those who are personally concerned, such as Major Buxton. I look forward to hearing the result of the Lord Chancellor's review of this, and whether he has now been able to make up his mind on whether the scope of persons who are personally interested can be widened.
I am afraid that my remarks have gone a little wide of the subject matter before us this afternoon, but a debate of this kind gives us an opportunity of conducting what is called a "grand inquest" on what is becoming something of tremendous importance to the people of this country. I am sure that nobody would grudge our taking a rather wider

207
view of this matter than would be justified by the terms of the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put before us.
5.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like first of all to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for putting down this Motion and for the great care he put into the preparation and presentation of his speech. I join with him in saying again how much we regret the death of our old friend Lord Reading. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that during the interregnum Sir Hugh Rose, whose manifest capabilities are known to many of your Lordships, was good enough to act as Chairman, and the work was carried on with great care and efficiency during that time. And all his old friends in the House will agree that I was very lucky to be able to secure the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, as a successor.
There is one preliminary point that I want to mention, and that is to assure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I have no intention of practising any dentistry in pulling out the teeth of the Council. It is true that he may have seen from Who's Who that I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, but I assure him that this is purely honorary and on condition that I never use the knife. I am just as anxious as any of your Lordships that the Council should have teeth and should do its work forcibly, as well as accurately and carefully.
I think the first major point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had in mind, was whether the increasing burden of work now falling on the Council might tend. to put it mildly, to affect its efficiency. I have considered that point, but I think everyone this afternoon has agreed that it is essential that the members of the Council should be part-time members, men and women with great experience in other fields of life. Although the noble Lord suggested a larger staff, I think it was implicit in his whole approach that it would be undesirable if the work of the Council were to be done through a large body of officials. The value of the Council lies in the fact that
208
the public have the assurance that the activities of professional administrators and members of tribunals can be scrutinised by a body of persons who have no axe to grind and who bring to their work a wide experience gained in other fields.
The noble Lord, Lord Citrine, was, I think, more anxious than anyone else on that point. May I remind him again that of course it is not the function of the Council to sit as an appellate body over the results of either the tribunals or the Minister or the inspectors. They have to see that the composition—and that is my responsibility—is right. They have to see that I carry on my responsibility aright. They can ask me how the composition is dealt with; they can suggest better methods and, perhaps it might be, a wider field of recruitment; and they can, of course, go and see that this can be done. I think the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, will agree from his vast experience that it can be done by a spot check; they can see how the tribunals of various sorts are being carried on. Therefore I hope that we shall not change the character to make this the head of a large body of officials. I have various ideas in mind. One, of course, as the noble Lord mentioned, is to enlarge the Council and still keep it of the same kind. I hope to discuss that with my noble friend Lord Tenby when we have had an opportunity of assimilating what has been said in this debate.
May I put this thought to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and, through him, the general public? There is another side to this matter. I am very anxious that no member of the public should feel barred from going to the Council and making his complaints. But, on the other hand, if you take a body of fourteen men and women who are doing this work part-time in order to serve their country, and if you throw at them an inspector's report, debates here or in another place, and notes of evidence at some inquiry, and say, "We do not like the result", obviously it is a very difficult task for fourteen part-time people to go through that maze of documents. I appeal to everyone who wants to make complaints to try reasonably to formulate what these complaints are, and to make them clear to the Council. I do not think that is an unreasonable request, and I hope that the public will follow it.

209
Now may I deal with a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in which he was supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett? That is the question of an appeal on facts from tribunals, and particularly rent tribunals. Again I ask your Lordships to believe that I am not fencing with this problem or putting up a debating case. I ask your Lordships to look at the social background of the work of these tribunals. Their prime duty is to fix reasonable rents for furnished lettings, and their decisions are therefore essentially matters of opinion. They are experienced in the work of their areas and in many cases—in fact I should think in all cases—they have inspected the premises. On that, they form their opinion as to what is a reasonable rent. Fixing rents for furnished premises with a maximum rateable value of £40 a year in London, and £30 outside, is not an exact science. That is work suitable for someone applying common-sense to conditions he knows in a regular way.
My first difficulty—and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to consider it with an open mind, as I am sure he will—is why should an appellate body be able to form a better opinion of what is essentially a matter of practical opinion and local knowledge? My difficulty does not stop there. You have to consider the people who are mainly involved. What we want to provide for them is that the tribunals should be cheap, speedy and informed. As soon as you introduce an appeal, the process is protracted and, of course, if legal representation is widely introduced, or professional witnesses, it will become more costly. As I said, the rateable value is not exceeding £40 in London and £30 in the provinces. Nearly all the cases are with regard to the letting of a furnished room or rooms, and on the whole the tenants are poor and inarticulate, and include a large number of immigrants. In these circumstances, as I say, the danger of an appeal is that it makes the process protracted. On the other hand, if you were to put any costs sanction on to it you might frighten these people off from going and getting their rights.
I hope the noble Lord will agree—because he is always so fair-minded—that these are real difficulties as to appeals on
210
fact. Of course, as he frankly said in his speech, there is, under Section 9 of the Act, an appeal on law. Any party may appeal to the High Court, or require the tribunal to state a case for the High Court and, in addition, they have the procedure certiori and similar remedies. That deals with the exceptional cases. It also deals with the case where they found on no evidence at all, because that is a question of law. I feel that that is a point which we ought to consider very carefully. It is so easy in this field to make the best the enemy of the good that I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider it once again. I certainly shall. I have put my difficulties, but that does not mean that I shall shut my eyes to what the noble Lord has said. I shall consider what has been said by everyone, and by my noble and learned friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the question (and the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, also dealt with it) about the position of my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions. I think the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, spoke on the first point, namely, that it is mandatory under the existing regulations that the tribunal must—I repeat, must—order everyone out. I just want to add, however, that that was imposed on the express advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which was appointed to advise the Minister in 1948 when the Act came into force.
The other point is that for some time (the noble Lord, Lord Citrine may have had these days in mind) the public were not admitted to these hearings. But that situation was changed some years ago, so that the public can now come to the hearing; and so, of course, can the members of the Council. But difficulty has arisen over permitting members of the Council to retire with the members of the tribunal when the latter are coming to their conclusion. As I say, this is not permissible under the present regulations; and to make a change would involve amending the regulations. Under the National Insurance Act this would have to be submitted to the same National Insurance Advisory Committee who originally advised against it; and it would also, of course, have to come to the Council on Tribunals.
I think there is here a difficulty which we have to balance. When one retires one has a very frank discussion—I think

211
that well applies to any body of which I have been a member—and it is difficult for members of a tribunal to have as frank a discussion with somebody on the council rather watching and estimating whether or not they are talking common sense; and the Minister tells me that there is some difficulty on that point. Of course I will consider it, but I hope that noble Lords will see that it is not just an arrogant assumption of ministerial power; it is consideration of something on which the Minister has been advised on very high authority in the insurance fields and on which he feels members of his tribunal might be in some difficulty.
LORD CITRINE: May I interject on that point? First, the Council has the job of reviewing the work of the tribunal.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A statutory job, a statutory obligation.
LORD CITRINE: It has that job—very well. But so far as we can see, it has no facility whatever for doing that job except such facility as is possessed by any member of the public: in other words, of being present at the actual hearing. But during the other part, which is even more vital, when the conclusions are being reached, its members are excluded; and they are excluded, apparently, under a decision made ten years ago, before this tribunal was appointed, before this Council was appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I asked: was it not an arbitrary way to deal with the question merely to say, in the first part of the question, Yes, and in the second part of the question, No? Had an explanation been given such as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has now given I certainly would not have raised the question as indicating discourtesy on anybody's part.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I ought to continue for one moment, and then I think I shall have satisfied, or at any rate explained the matter to, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine. Now members of the Council can of course listen to everything that goes on. The tribunal has to give reasons for its decisions, so the Council members can compare what they heard and the reasons. The only
212
thing that has not been done—and I think this is where the difficulty arises—is to permit the members of the Council to retire with the tribunal and listen to its discussions.
Let me take an example—and I do so only to illustrate the difficulty. As your Lordships know, one of the matters in which I am most interested is the functioning of magistrates: it comes into my life every day. I am always trying, especially with the appointment of new magistrates, to see that they appreciate the responsibilities of the position, that they are the best to do it, and that they get experience of the law. But I think any magistrate would feel I was going a bit far if I sent my Secretary of Commissions to retire with a bench of magistrates considering an actual case to see whether the young entry to the bench talked sense during their private discussions. I will consider the matter and consider what the noble Lord said, but it is not as easy as it at first appeared, and I hope that noble Lords will acquit my right honourable friend of being peremptory, as was said.
I am not going into the question raised on agricultural tribunals, by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I told him that I would look into the question of discovery and I need not detain your Lordships on that matter.
I now come to the point raised by my noble friend, Lord Ampthill; and may I say, entirely without prejudice to the position, how fully I understand, appreciate and sympathise with his approach to the matter and his desire to preserve the national beauties of the countryside which means so much to him. The procedure which he mentioned, the procedure announced by the Secretary of State for War on March 6, 1959, was one that was invented to deal with the difficulties of the Service Departments. And that, I think, takes it out of the general category in which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put it, of the Minister deciding in his own cause; because he will understand that it is very difficult, when a matter of high security, or a new installation of high security by a Service Department, is concerned. For in such a case there is really nobody else except that Department which can give the final word. Even the Ministry of Defence is in a different position.

213
Therefore, in order that matters of high security can, if necessary, be dealt with in secrecy, we invented the procedure by which the Minister can authorise the compulsory acquisition under the Defence Acts of any interest in land; but he has to inform those concerned of his intention and to tell them that he will consider any reasonable objection. If any objector persists, the Minister must offer to the objector an opportunity to appear at an inquiry held by a person appointed by me. I think your Lordships will agree that is a reasonable approach to the difficult question of secrecy. I am sorry that there were these various points. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, gave a completely candid account of the matter, and there were really two points after the inquiry which, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, he took very well and did not try to make any false point out of at all. One was that the appointed person found that Ringstead should be spared on amenity grounds, if it were possible to establish the installation at Portland Bill; and of course he also took the view that it was impossible to bring the proposed acquisition within the terms of the Defence Act, 1842.
On the locality point, my right honourable friend was convinced that no suitable site could be found at Portland Bill and therefore that the construction at Ringstead should proceed. On the other point, the Law Officers and I myself disagreed with the view taken by the distinguished Queen's Counsel who held the inquiry that there was no legal power and that it was impossible to bring the proposed acquisition within the terms of the Defence Act. My noble friend was kind enough to say that I wrote to him in the middle of the then current long vacation and I tried to make as clear as I could why I thought there was legal power; and I referred him to the various Statutes. That is the position. I should like to deal with the further question of costs rather separately. As I say, I am sorry that the noble Lord had the difficulties he spoke of, but I have not been able to think of a better procedure for dealing with potentially security matters. I thought of all these things a great deal at the time and discussed them with all the relevant Departments. But if my noble friend, after his rather sad cause of reflection, can think of any improvement, I hope
214
he will come and see me and have a talk about it. I shall be very pleased to consider it.
May I go from this to the question of costs? That is a very difficult matter and I am not going at this late hour to read out the paragraphs, but those of your Lordships who are interested will find costs dealt with in regard to one part of the matter in the Franks Report at paragraphs 323, 324 and 326. Summarising the Franks suggestion, I would say that it was that in compulsory acquisition cases in clearance schemes reasonable costs should generally be awarded to successful objectors directly interested in the land, but should be awarded to unsuccessful objectors only if the initiating authority had acted unreasonably, and costs should be awarded against an unsuccessful objector only if he acted frivolously or vexatiously. Your Lordships will see, even from the point of view of my noble friend, Lord Ampthill, that the Franks Committee test was not whether my noble friend was reasonable in putting forward his objection, but whether the inquiring authority was unreasonable in any course, and that just shows the sort of difficulty that arises in this field of compulsory acquisition.
There are also great difficulties in planning appeals, and my feeling is still, as I said to your Lordships before, that as any alteration in the present practice in regard to award of costs before both tribunals and inquiries presents real difficulties, before any change can be made the matter would have to be very carefully reviewed by the Council on Tribunals. I have had it in mind for some time—I warn my noble friend Lord Tenby—to refer this matter to the Council as soon as they are free to take it up, when they have finished with the matters which we all know they have in hand at the moment. I think that would be the best way, because it really requires working out in some detail.
May I say one or two words as to the general position. I think everyone who has spoken has put accurately the position with regard to departmental inquiries. The Franks Committee dealt with it in paragraphs 262 to 277, and everyone who has spoken agrees that the Franks Committee were right in saying that they had both a judicial and an administrative aspect. It has been said in the discussion

215
that the danger is that what has been done since the Franks Report to emphasise the judicial nature of these inquiries has tended to obscure their function as essentially a part of one process, the object of which is to enable the Minister to be in the best position to reach a conclusion in a particular case. Of course, that conclusion, as your Lordships have pointed out again and again, may be affected by policy considerations.
I agree with what has found favour with your Lordships: that whenever possible there ought to be a statement of policy, so that people understand what are the limits within which they can put their case. But there arises the real difficulty in regard to this subject: when you are dealing with a compound like that, a compound of the judicial and the administrative, how are you going to get the constituents rightly mixed? The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke this afternoon, but when I showed some objection a few months ago to discussing the merits of an inquiry before the inspector had arrived at his conclusion and suggested that that was analogous to the position of a case that is sub judice, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, told me that I was over-stressing the judicial side of these inquiries, and he was strongly supported by The Times newspaper.
Yet, when I gave my view—some of your Lordships did not agree with it—that you can draw a distinction between the evaluation of evidence and the tendering of new evidence, then everyone went the other way and said I was not considering this difficult problem from a sufficiently legal point of view. I make no complaint. We are dealing with a new subject matter. I am most anxious we should get it right. I hope no noble Lord will ever for a moment think I mind criticism; I welcome it as helping towards getting a better state of things and a better procedure. But the fact that I should have had those two forms of criticisms within one month, shows how difficult is the subject matter. That is all I ask your Lordships to agree: that it is difficult, and on that basis we will try to improve it together.
May I just say one word about inspectors? I am not going over the old history. It was made clear by Mr. Butler, as early as October 31, 1957,
216
that he proposed that in future the Minister would appoint inspectors only after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and would be free to dismiss them, should such a necessity arise, only with the Lord Chancellor's consent. I want to assure your Lordships that that has not become a matter of mere "rubber stamping" the appointment of inspectors. What happens is that I am represented on the selection board for the appointment of inspectors. That is not an empty formality. The members of my staff who sit on the board are concerned to see that the candidates chosen are likely to have a judicial outlook. The Ministry representatives are concerned mainly with their technical ability. So far as our ability is concerned to judge by being in this field, I am satisfied that the inspectors are not under the thumb of the administrators.
The other point is the draft rules and procedure. There will have to be considered the two important points that have arisen—on the one hand, the question of what is new factual evidence, and on the other hand, the class of people who are entitled to come into the matter by reason of their position. What happened was this. The first thing I had to do was to collect the views of the sections of the Government which might be affected. We got out some draft rules and we had an informal consultation. It was before my noble friend Lord Tenby came, but Sir Hugh Rose was good enough to see the representative of my Department and to tell him that he thought it would help the Council on Tribunals better if I consulted the professional bodies and then brought back the rules amended in the light of that consultation.
That takes a considerable time. I am not blaming anyone for a moment—not even myself. I think that we had to consult them. We have not had all the replies. We shall do some redrafting and then bring them back before the Council on Tribunals. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that sometimes delay works for our benefit. In this case, it gives us a chance to consider this difficult question of new factual evidence, on which I do not think anyone realised there could be such bitterly held differences of opinion until we had the chance of considering this case, into which I am not

217
going to-day, and the other point that I have just mentioned. Your Lordships have been, as you always are, most kind to me.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount leaves this question of the new rules, I quite appreciate what he has said—I think I myself said, "Let us turn the delay into good"—but what I should like him to do is to give the House the assurance for which I have asked: that, when all the consultation is over and Parliament is asked to pass and ratify these new rules of evidence, they will be presented to Parliament in such a form that Parliament can freely criticise and make suggestions, and Parliament will not be presented with them as a statutory instrument which can be prayed against only in toto.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to consider what is the statutory position, because I have not applied my mind to that. But the noble Lord will see that what I am saying is going to be the process is this: they will come from the professional and other bodies to me; they will then go to the Council on Tribunals, and the Council on Tribunals will state their views. So there is no question of this suddenly emerging from Whitehall like Pallas Athena out of the head of Zeus. Publicity must be given to them, and of course the Council on Tribunals, if they think we are making a big mistake, can take up the matter. So I should like to assure the noble Lord that nothing is going to be hidden in regard to the matter. I would rather he did not tie me on the statutory procedure until I have looked into it.
There was one other point on which I think your Lordships are entitled to a pronouncement, if your Lordships' patience will stand it. The noble Lord, Lord, Lucas of Chilworth, said that the Council on Tribunals should really act, or might be brought into the position of acting, as an Ombudsman. I have considered carefully all the arguments in favour of Ombudsman, which are really that there is insufficient machinery for investigating individual complaints which cannot be brought before a court of law; that there is no method by which an aggrieved individual can attack a piece of bad administration where there is no tribunal or inquiry—that is the
218
sort of Crichel Down position; and that Members of Parliament feel they have certain limitations, especially in regard to the action of local authorities, nationalised industries and provincial police forces. I have summarised it shortly.
The difficulty is that if we are going to get into the Ombudsman procedure we must look at the powers that that needs. That would mean that the Council would need to be able to call for departmental records and to call civil servants before them for cross-examination. Tins method is used in relatively small countries with a population of four to six million. If you think of my right honourable friend having to initiate that procedure in the case of a country with 50 million, you realise that it would require a very large staff indeed; I do not see how it could be avoided. Secondly, it would mean a fundamental change in the position of civil servants in relation to their Ministers, and of course in the Ministers' responsibility to Parliament. If your staff are liable to that, then you must have a responsibility to the Ombudsman which, of course, is quite different from the present position of responsibility to Parliament.
It would also effect a change in the status of Members of Parliament. I notice two or three of your Lordships who have even longer experience of the Back Benches in the House of Commons than the fourteen years' experience which I myself have. One of the glories of the position of a Private Member is that he can, on behalf of his constituents, find a way of showing where the shoe pinches and make a complaint about it, and broadly—and as I say, I have seen it from both ends of the gun—I think it is effective. But what would be terrible from the point of view of our country would be if your Lordships were to substitute a new procedure which would take away that duty and responsibility from the private Member of Parliament.
I give your Lordships only one other matter, which will be amusing to those of your Lordships who have been Ministers of the Crown. The Parliamentary Question, although known in Scandinavia, is not much used; and according to my information, in each country something like 100 to 150 Parliamentary Questions are asked in a year. I can see noble Lords thinking

219
of one day in another place when they have had to answer at least 40 Questions. I have had to do so, and I am sure other noble Lords have been in the same position. Therefore, that is something we have been able to develop and which I think must be taken into account, in addition to the differences in the law and our other procedures. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will not think that, because I have put the difficulties, I have closed my mind. I am glad to think that a study of this Scandinavian procedure has been taken by the
Organisation of Justice. We hope to get their report in the autumn and I will consider it.
There is one other point of the extension; that is really the chapter 3 mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. If I may put it in much less poetic terms, it is an extension to inquiries in respect of which there is not a duty under a Statute for a Minister. That again is a point which deserves great consideration, but I would put to noble Lords this fundamental fact. We must not so slow the government of this country that it becomes ineffective, just as I have said to your Lordships over and over again that if you insist on the most perfect and legalistic procedure for these inquiries, and increase the time from six to eight months to sixteen to eighteen months, on the whole you will have committed an injustice. Similarly here, if your Lordships are going to make difficulties for a Minister who wants to be fully informed before he takes an important decision, or reports his view of an important decision, by saying that he cannot have an informal inquiry in order to consider the point, then I think you are in danger of causing great difficulty in his doing his work.
Where do we draw the line? Clearly, if he asks AB to go and look at something on behalf of his Department, that would not be an inquiry, and I do not think anyone who has spoken to-day would want to prevent that. If the Minister says, "Collect people from three of my sub-departments to go and consider this together, or ask someone from another Department to come in and help" those would be informal investigations which I think should be left to the Minister.
220
Your Lordships will agree that I had many points put to me, and that if I was to deal with them I had to occupy a considerable amount of your Lordships' time; but I apologise for doing so. I simply ask you, in conclusion, first of all to bear in mind the figures we have heard to-day—that there are 2,000 tribunals dealing with 122,000 cases and 6,000 inquiries. I do not want to be complacent, and I do not want any Government Department to be complacent. But I believe that it would be unfair to those who give their time as members of the tribunals, and broadly to the inspectorate of whom the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke so highly, if we were to allow the relatively few cases that go wrong to blind us to the good, quiet, solid work that is done all over the country every day.
The only other points I want to make are these. I am quite sure that the experience the Council have gained in the past two and a half years is invaluable, and that their reports, in turn, will be invaluable to us who have been concerned with the business of government. The Council must attract and be staffed by men and women of the same high quality and the great experience that its members hitherto have had. It is with real sincerity that I ask my noble friend Lord Tenby to convey to his colleagues, and to accept himself, my deep gratitude and the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government and of every part of the House.
6.46 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his extremely courteous reply to a highly critical speech of mine. I expected a courteous reply, and I had it; and I am grateful to him. I am grateful also to noble and learned Lords and noble Lords who have made valuable contributions to this debate. I am also glad that the Chairman of the Council of Tribunals has seen fit to sit right through this debate, and I feel that the collective wisdom of the future will take us another step along this road on which, as the noble and learned Viscount says quite correctly, we are all learners; but let us be willing to learn. With those words, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
6.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [River Board's consent for pre-1951 discharges]:
VISCOUNT SIMON: This is a very simple Amendment and is really only for the purpose of clarification. It was always the intention and meaning of Clause 1 that it should be possible for applications to be made and dealt with as soon as the Bill becomes law. But it has been questioned whether the conditions attached to a consent given before the appointed date could be enforced before that date, in view of the fact that it is only after that date that the first subsection of Clause 1 becomes effective and declares a discharge without consent to be illegal. This Amendment therefore makes it plain that conditions may take effect before the appointed date, subject of course to subsection (6) of Clause 1 (which suspends their operation for three months or until an appeal is determined), and further makes plain that once these conditions are in operation they may be enforced under subsection (8) of the same clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at end insert ("and where consent is granted before that date subject to conditions, those conditions may, subject to subsection (6) of this section, take effect before that date")—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Protection while applications are being dealt with]:
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (d) to insert:
"or
(e) paragraph 32 of the Third Schedule to the Gas Act, 1948, or section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875 (which relate to pollution from gasworks)"
222
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 4 are really on the same lines. Your Lordships will have observed that in Clause 2 we provide that once an application has been made for consent the applicant is protected from prosecution under certain enactments until the application has been dealt with,
either by the river board imposing conditions or by the Minister after appeal. It has been pointed out to us that there is a specific provision in paragraph 32 of the Third Schedule to the Gas Act, 1948, which imposes an absolute prohibition on Area Gas Boards allowing any waste products at all to flow into a river. That being so, the Gas Council have made the request that we should introduce this Amendment, and add to the enactments under which the applicant is protected from prosecution paragraph 32 of the Third Schedule to the Gas Act, 1948, and Section 68 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which also relates to pollution from gasworks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Simon.)
EARL JELLICOE: I fear I rather missed my cue on the last Amendment. I should like to make it clear that this Amendment, like the last one and the other Amendments which my noble friend will be moving, has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: This Amendment arises from the fact that some doubt was expressed, both by river boards and also by industry generally, about the effectiveness of the clause as it now appears. This clause provides that in certain circumstances the protection given to applicants may be withdrawn, and the circumstances are,
"If…the applicant has since the making of the application failed to use, or to repair or maintain, any purification plant".
It was felt that in one way this was too wide, because "failed to use" might merely mean that it was used but was not used efficiently. The river boards felt that that was inadequate. On the other hand, industry felt that "failed to use" might mean that you had got to have full and continual use of the plant,

223
and that a discharger might lose the protection of the clause where normal variations in the quantity or character of the discharge made it unnecessary and perhaps impossible to run the plant at capacity all the time. So the proposal is put forward that we replace those words by the words "make proper use of". I would just point out that the question of whether or not proper use has been made of plant, which is obviously a question of fact, would be decided, not by the river boards but by the magistrates' court, and it is only if proper use has not been made of the plant that the magistrates' court may decide, on an application, to withdraw the protection given to the applicant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("use") and insert ("make proper use of").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Protection for persons complying with conditions]:
VISCOUNT SIMON: This is an exactly similar Amendment to Amendment No. 2, dealing with the protection of the discharger once conditions have been laid down by the river board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line. 20, at end insert—
("or
(e) paragraph 32 of the Third Schedule to the Gas Act, 1948, or section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Review and variation of conditions governing discharges and new outlets]:
6.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: This Amendment has been submitted at the request of the river boards. They have pointed out that from time to time they may be asked for a purely temporary consent. For example, when a plant is being washed out once a year there may be a temporary consent for a particular type of discharge, and it is felt that it would
224
not be at all appropriate in that case for all the formula prescribed in the First Schedule to be attached to the consent, and for there to be a rule that it could not be altered for two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, at end insert—
("(4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to a consent or notice. which, in consequence of the temporary nature of the discharge to which it relates or for any other reason, will be spent within two years from the date on which the consent takes effect or the notice is given, and no notice shall be given under subsection (I) of this section varying the conditions of any such consent or notice except with the consent in writing of the person making the discharge.").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Other provisions relating to discharges and new outlets]:
VISCOUNT SIMON: These three Amendments—Nos. 6, 7 and 8—all run together, and I hope that it will be to the convenience of the Committee if I speak to them together, although I understand that we have to deal with them separately. I am afraid they are a little difficult to follow, and perhaps I might be allowed to read to your Lordships how the clause will run when these Amendments, if the Committee agree to them, have been added. The clause will then read:
"If the occupier of land or premises from which effluent passes or may pass to a stream by two or more ways meeting at the outlet, or a point short of the outlet, gives his consent for the purposes of this subsection. the power to impose conditions under this Act or section seven of the principal Act as to effluent discharged from the land or premises shall thereafter (and notwithstanding any change of occupation) include power to impose conditions as to the nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge of effluent passing in each or any of those ways separately. A consent given for the purposes of this subsection shall be recorded in the register under subsection (7) of section seven of the principal Act but may be withdrawn by agreement with the river board or the Minister."
This is a rather complicated point. You sometimes have discharges running from two or three pipes into a common outlet. It may suit a discharger to have those three discharges tested and sampled separately. It was originally

225
provided in the Bill that this could be done by the river board at their discretion, but it is now proposed that that procedure can be adopted only with the consent of the discharger. It is understood that in many cases it will in fact be suitable to the discharger to do it, and in those cases where it is not suitable it would not be at all appropriate to do it. I beg to move the first of these three Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("stream") in line 25 and insert ("If the occupier of land or premises from which effluent passes or may pass to a").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg to move Amendment 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26 after second ("outlet") insert ("gives his consent for the purposes of this subsection, the power to impose conditions under this Act or section seven of the principal Act as to effluent discharged from the land or premises shall thereafter (and notwithstanding any change of occupation)").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg to move Amendment 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 29, at end insert—
("A consent given for the purposes of this subsection shall be recorded in the register under subsection (7) of section seven of the principal Act but may be withdrawn by agreement with the river board or the Minister.")—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Estuaries and tidal waters]:
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to subsection (1):
("but as if, in relation to any tidal waters or parts of the sea to which the provisions of the said sections two to five, or any of them, are first applied at a time after the commencement of this Act, for references to the date appointed under section one of this Act there were substituted references to a date twelve months after that time or such earlier or later date as may be specified in the order applying the said provisions")
The noble Viscount said: This is purely a technical Amendment, designed to correct a drafting omission. Certain
226
orders may be made by the Minister, after the Bill becomes law, under Section 6 of the Act of 1951, which will have the effect of extending river board control of existing discharges to tidal waters to which it does not already extend. The Amendment before your Lordships enables the Minister to fix an appointed date in respect of any such Order. The reason is that if an order were made after the Bill had come into force, it might even be after the appointed date in the Bill, and it would be necessary to appoint a special appointed date to deal with the particular order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to subsection (2):
"and the said Act of 1960 shall apply to any such tidal waters or parts of the sea as are not controlled waters but are waters to which, at the commencement of this Act, any of the provisions of sections two to five of the principal Act apply by virtue of an order made, or having effect as if made, under section six of that Act as it applies to controlled waters".
The noble Viscount said: This is again a purely technical Amendment to correct a drafting defect in Clause 9. The intention of Clause 9, broadly, is that the first three clauses of this Bill—those dealing with existing discharges—will apply, in tidal waters, only to those waters which are already, or may become, subject to an Order by the Minister under the Act of 1951. All the other parts of this Bill, much of which relate to new discharges and which amend the Act of 1951, apply to all those tidal waters to which the Act of 1951 applies, and they are the waters which were referred to in the Schedule to the Clean Rivers Act, 1960. It was thought that those waters in respect of which special Orders had been made were all included in the Schedule to the 1960 Act. It has been found that, in fact, there are a few which are not covered. There is one on the Yorkshire North-East coast and there are five in the Hull and East Yorkshire River Board area, and the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Bill to apply to those six small tidal areas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Samples of effluent]:
VISCOUNT SIMON: This is a very small drafting Amendment. As your Lordships will see, Clause 10 provides for the river boards to exercise their powers under the River Boards Act, but it has been pointed out that the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board exercises its power under a different Act, and that is the reason for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, after ("1948") insert ("or under any other enactment").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Restriction of disclosure of information
12.—(1) If any person discloses any information which has been furnished to or obtained by him in connection with the execution of this Act or the principal Act he shall be guilty of an offence, unless the disclosure is made—
(a) with the consent of the person by whom the information was furnished or from whom it was obtained; or
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the execution of" and to insert, "any consent or any application for a consent under". The noble Lord said: Clause 12 was inserted into the Bill in the other place during Report stage at the request of industrial interests, who felt that the existing law did not adequately protect a trader against leakage of information about industrial processes which river boards might acquire, and it is right that in the Bill the responsibility of river boards should be that better provision is made for the protection of the trader. I have no objection at all to the Federation of British Industries' view that there should be confidential retention of information which deals with industrial processes, and that there should be no danger of rival concerns gaining commercial advantage through information disclosed by river boards.
But the effect of this clause, as at present drafted, is very much wider than that. As at present drafted, this clause would prevent river boards from giving any information about any subject which has to do with the operation of the Act. River board officials act not only in connection with river board matters, but also as protection officers for fishing; and when they are so doing it could be said that they are acting under the principal Act. If that be so, and there were a thousand or ten thousand poisoned fish, the river board officers would be unable to give to those responsible for trying to keep our rivers clean any details of matters as were revealed by such poisoning.
I am sure that the promoters of the Bill do not wish to prevent a river board from co-operating with riparian owners and others in the prevention of pollution and the full exercise of riparian owners' Common Law rights. Since the war, three Government Committees—the Hobday Committee, the Armer Committee, and, a few weeks ago, the Bledisloe Committee—have all recommended that the civil law in relation to pollution should be retained as a valuable supplement to statutory law. In other words, those, whether individuals or fishing clubs, whose waters have been polluted should retain the right to claim damages against the polluter, and, where appropriate, seek an injunction. A river board has no power except to impose a fine, whereas the riparian owner can get action in the way of an injunction and in the way of damages.
For many years, there has been happy co-operation between riparian owners and river boards in fighting pollution. Samples of polluted water and dead fish are frequently taken by riparian owners and handed to river boards for analysis. The river board may or may not take criminal action; that is for the river board to decide. But when the owner claims damages under civil law, he certainly needs analyses of the samples to prove his case. And, indeed, if I read one paragraph of the Bledisloe Report to your Lordships, your Lordships will see that my contention is borne out. On page 52 of the Bledisloe Report, paragraph 191 says:
"…For the purpose of removing any doubt there may be, we think it should be made clear that in a Common Law action any

229
sample taken by a river board official should be admissible as evidence."
As the clause is at present drafted, that would not be possible.
I quite appreciate the general purpose of Clause 12—to prevent the divulging of trade secrets which a river board official may discover in the course of his duties—but I must say that I think it is rather a remote contingency, as pollution has gone on for years past, and it was only at the Committee stage in another place that any fears were expressed. I regret very much that this clause was inserted without any consultations with interested parties such as the Anglers' Co-operative Association, which represents the interests of millions of men of all classes who fish all sorts of waters in this country. It would have been so much better, I think, had those responsible co-operated at the beginning.
The purpose of the two Amendments—and I move the first one; they are alternatives—is to provide industry with adequate protection while, at the same time, allowing the co-operation which has existed in the past to continue in the future, and also to allow the riparian owner to retain his civil law rights, assisted in their fulfilment with the help of the river boards, such as has occurred in the past. It seems to me quite unnecessary to impose such a complete ban on intercourse with outside people or bodies as this Bill at present proposes, and my first Amendment seeks to confine the ban to information that may be obtained as a result of consent or an application for a consent for the discharge of an effluent. I think that it is an eminently reasonable Amendment which I hope will find approval with the promoters of the Bill and also with the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("the execution of") and insert ("any consent or any application for a consent under").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
7.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: This Amendment is not quite so simple as the noble Lord has tried to make us believe and as I am sure he believes himself. Like all your Lordships, I have only had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment this morning and there has not been a great deal of time to look at it, but,
230
so far as I am advised, in the principal case that he has brought before the Committee the noble Lord has been misdirected. It has been pointed out to me that the power of sampling derives from Section 16 of the River Board Act; it is not derived from this Bill at all, and therefore Clause 12 would not prevent the passing of a sample, if, in fact, that is what is done. This raises a rather wide issue. I was not aware of this practice and I do not think that your Lordships would generally agree that it is a good idea for a public body to be given powers which they can then use to support a private person in claiming damages from some other private person. That seems to me a rather curious thing, but I understand it has been going on, and I am advised that this clause as it stands would not prevent its going on.
Generally speaking, I prefer the wording in the clause, perhaps because one always prefers the wording one has been brought up to, but. I do not know whether there is a great deal of difference in what is now proposed. I have to point out that the wording of the Amendment would need to be looked at, not only because applications and consents are affected, but also because the case—I think it is in Clause 1 (5)—where no application is made and the river board has to impose conditions would somehow have to be brought within the Amendment. I would ask your Lordships to accept the clause as it stands, and perhaps between now and the Report stage I could have some further conversations with the noble Lord—we have not had any talk together except a brief one in the House this afternoon—and see whether I can satisfy him that his Amendment is unnecessary or whether, between us, with the interests concerned, we can find an Amendment which could be accepted.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that at this stage the waters we have been discussing have become a trifle murky, even polluted. I confess that I am still not really clear about the full implications of my noble friend's Amendment, despite his lucid exposition. At first blush, I confess I also share some of the hesitation which my noble friend Lord Simon has just expressed. Therefore, I would hope that my noble friend Lord

231
Balfour of Inchrye will not press this Amendment at this stage, more especially since he raised the question of consultation. On this Amendment there has been no chance of consultation with interested parties. I may add that before the existing clause was incorporated in the Bill, there was full consultation, at least with the River Boards Association. There has not been much time to consider this rather complicated Amendment. I should hope that we could go along with the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Simon—namely, that if my noble friend could see his way to withdraw his Amendment at this stage, we could have a look at the whole matter between now and Report stage.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I always want to respond to an appeal, but I must make one or two remarks—first of all, with regard to the strictures as regards shortage of time. Perhaps these would be better addressed to those who promoted the Bill and did not take into consultation the fresh water fishing and anti-pollution interests, but dealt so promptly and efficiently with large industrial enterprises.
EARL JELLICOE: I thought I had explained to my noble friend that there was full consultation with the River Boards Association, who surely deal with fresh water.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Yes, but river boards vary very much and do not all have the interests of anti-polluters in mind in the way some of us would like. It would have been much better if the Salmon and Trout Association and the Anglers' Co-operative Association had been brought into the picture at an earlier stage, and that is the reason why there is such a shortage of time—I was only told about this at a later stage.
I will withdraw my Amendment provided the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, comes with me in the general intention that co-operation between all the interests aimed at keeping our rivers clean shall continue unprejudiced in the future as in the past. I was not much attracted by the noble Viscount's words when he spoke about a "curious thing". There is nothing underhand in a river board giving the result of an analysis to
232
a fishing club or to a riparian owner. After all, the river boards are paid for
by the public, and I think it is only right and natural that they should render that service. If the effect of rendering that service enables someone to obtain damages, that is a matter for the judiciary to decide. But if the noble Viscount will come with me in trying to work out an Amendment—and I think he has a valid point with regard to my Amendment when he says that it covers the case where no consent is asked for—with the wish to co-operate in arranging that the liaison which has existed in the past should continue in the future and that the riparian owner's rights of redress by way of injunction for damages should not in any way be affected indirectly by the Bill, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment. Otherwise, I feel it is an Amendment upon which noble Lords could well express their views.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not wish to delay the House as late as this by dividing on this Amendment. I should certainly like to go with the noble Lord in the spirit of co-operation. I hope he will not ask me to sign my name to the rather long sentence he gave to me, which, I am afraid I have not got in my head. The only thing I would say is that I feel the co-operation must be not merely with the Salmon and Trout Fishing Association and the Anglers' Cooperative Association, but also with the River Boards Association and the Federation of British Industries—in fact, with all the interests concerned in the Bill. Provided that we have the cooperation of all the interests concerned in the Bill, I will gladly give the noble Lord an assurance that I will go with him to try to find a mutually acceptable Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: With that assurance, and with freedom to come back to the subject on Report stage, if necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

HIGHWAYS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
7.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Molson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Rights of certain councils to maintain county roads
". In subsection (2) of section forty-five of the principal Act (which precludes the council of a non-county borough or urban district council who failed to make a claim under section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929 from making such a claim under section forty-live of the principal Act) the words ' not being a county road with respect to which they might have made such a claim under section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929, but failed to do so within the time limited by that section' shall be omitted and in paragraph 1 of Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the principal Act (which prescribes the period within which claims may be made by the councils of non-county boroughs and urban districts under the provisions of section forty-five of that Act to maintain county roads) the words 'for the first time' be omitted."
The noble Lord said: In rising to move the Amendment standing in my name, I regret that this is rather a technical matter and I shall not be able to put the case before your Lordships in quite the same snappy way that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has been familiarising your Lordships with in connection with the last Bill. This Amendment involves Section 45 (2) of the Highways Act, 1959, and in order to explain it I feel that I must remind your Lordships of the provisions of that subsection. It says:
"Where a non-county borough or urban district has a population exceeding twenty thousand, the council of the borough or district may, within the period specified in that behalf in Part I of the Eighth Schedule to this Act, claim to undertake the maintenance of any county road within the borough or district, not being a county road with respect to which they might have made such a claim under section thirty-two of the Local Government
234
Act, 1929, but failed to do so within the time limited by that section."
Your Lordships will observe that by the words of that subsection
"… not being a county road with respect to which they might have made such a claim under section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929, but failed to do so within the time limited by that section",
the non-county borough or the urban district council who failed to claim under Section 32 of the Local Government Act, 1929, is precluded from making such a claim under Section 45 of the 1959 Act. Further, paragraph 1 of Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the 1959 Act specifies the period within which that claim under the provisions of Section 45 of that Act may be made by the council, again of a non-county borough or urban district, to maintain county roads within their districts, in the following words:
"In a case where the population of the non-county borough or urban district is found by the Registrar-General's preliminary report on any census taken after the commencement of this Act Ito exceed for the first time"—
I ask your Lordships to note those words—
"twenty thousand and the road is a county road at the, date of the publication of that report, the claim may be made within twelve months from that date."
There are 23 urban district councils (and I should say that this Amendment and the others down in my name are being moved on behalf of the interests of the urban districts) which for a variety of reasons either failed to exercise the right to make such a claim under Section 32 of the 1929 Act on the occasion when the population of the district was first reported to have attained the qualifying number or, as an alternative, accepted responsibility for the maintenance of county roads under agreements delegating such powers from the county council or under agreements by which the district council acts as agent to the county council.
By reason of the limitation of the opportunity afforded to make a claim as of right to exercise the functions of maintenance of county roads these councils have lost, apparently for all time—at any rate, subject to some new Act of Parliament—irrespective of how much the population may be in excess of 20,000, the right to exercise the functions of maintenance of county roads within their districts. Of these 23 urban

235
district councils, no fewer than 12, I understand, have expressed a keen desire to have the further opportunity to claim to exercise the functions of maintenance of county roads as of right within their districts. According to the Registrar-General's Preliminary Report on the recent census, a further 28 urban districts have for the first time attained a population exceeding the 20,000 mark, and there is no doubt that many of these councils will be exercising their rights under the Statute to maintain county roads within their districts.
It is not the desire of these urban districts, so I am informed, that such councils shall be permitted to exercise the right of claiming to maintain these highways at any time after the attainment of a population of 20,000, but that they be empowered to exercise the right after each census and within a period of twelve months after the publication of the Registrar-General's Preliminary Report on the census, and not be limited to the first occasion when the Registrar-General's Preliminary Report on the census reveals a population exceeding 20,000. These limitations, I suggest, are altogether cramping. It is obviously very easy to miss the chance, so to speak, and then, apparently, one misses it for all time. It is quite simple to put this right by the deletion from subsection (2) of Section 45 the words
"…not being a county road with respect to which they might have made such a claim under section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929, but failed to do so within the time limited by that section."
and from paragraph 1 of Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the Highways Act, 1959, the words,
"for the first time".
If these words were taken out the whole situation would be righted. I hope your Lordships will agree that this would be a reasonable thing to do and that this is a convenient opportunity for taking this course. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Chorley.)
7.30 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I think I should point out to your Lordships that the form the noble Lord's Amendment takes is to move a completely new clause into the
236
Bill. He has told us he does this with the support, or at the instigation, of the Urban District Councils Association. I think that is what he said. What worries me about this, in the circumstances, is that they are not the only authority involved. I do not think I need follow the noble Lord into a great deal of technical detail about which he told us in moving the Amendment because of the rather important matters of principle which are involved.
If this Amendment should be accepted, the urban district councils would receive certain powers, and those functions would be taken away from the county councils. Obviously, therefore, it involves material alteration to the present situation in technical, financial and administrative responsibilities as they are at present divided between the two kinds of highway authority. I feel the noble Lord will understand, and not think that I am being unfriendly, when I say
that the matter which is the subject of his Amendment is one that has not hitherto entered into our proceedings. It did not come up on Second Reading, and his Amendment was put down only yesterday. I think it would be wrong to accept an Amendment of this kind without full consultations having taken place between the authorities involved. I understand that that has not been done, but my noble friend Lord Molson will no doubt confirm that or otherwise.
What interests me a little more is that, so far as my right honourable friend's Department is concerned, there are some important questions of principle involved as to whether the efficient and economical maintenance of the highways will be promoted by this measure. Frankly, 24 hours is quite an inadequate time to consider such a matter. As I say, I do not wish to be unfriendly to the noble Lord—I merely mention that as a fact. Having regard to the factors I have mentioned, that there have not been full discussions between the various authority associations, and certainly not time for us to consider whether this would be beneficial for road maintenance, I must advise that this Amendment be not accepted.
LORD MOLSON: It was only at a few minutes to four yesterday afternoon that I learned from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that he was intending to put down this Amendment. Your Lordships

237
will have listened to his exposition of the extremely technical and difficult problem which is raised by this Amendment, and clearly there has not been time enough for this matter to be fully considered during that time. After all, there was ample opportunity for this matter to be raised in another place. I have managed to get in touch with the County Councils Association who were responsible for the drafting of this Bill, and I have asked their views upon this Amendment. It appears that the Urban District Councils Association have not been in touch with the County Councils Association upon the matter. It was briefly discussed last winter, but there is no agreement between the local authorities upon the subject.
There may be many occasions when it is necessary for this House to decide between the conflicting interests of local authorities, but I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it would be most unwise for us to come to any conclusion upon so complicated a matter as this at such very short notice, when there has been no proper discussion between the two associations concerned. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the Amendment, but in any case I hope your Lordships will not accept it.
LORD CHORLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord who represents the Ministry of Transport, and to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for what they have said. I should like to explain that I was told that the Committee stage of this Bill would not be until the middle of next week. I have been away at quarter sessions, and I have not had time to turn round. I quite appreciate that this Amendment was put down very late in the day, but if the Government will give us so little time, it is more their fault than anybody else's. However, I appreciate that this is a matter in which the county councils have an interest, and as they have not had time to consider the matter and to consult with the other local authorities concerned I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power to fill in roadside ditches, etc.]:
7.37 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() Before exercising any of the powers of subsection (1) of this section in relation to a ditch within the area of a river board (not being a ditch to which section three hundred and eight of the principal Act is applied by the last foregoing subsection) the highway authority shall consult with the river board.
() Nothing in this section or done there-under shall prejudice or affect the operation of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, or permit the doing of any act which would have been unlawful by virtue of the provisions of the said Act of 1951 if this section had not been enacted or no works thereunder had been executed, and accordingly every pipe substituted under the powers of subsection (1) of this section for a stream within the meaning of the said Act of 1951 shall, for the purposes of that Act, be deemed to be a stream within the meaning of that Act."
The noble Lord said: I appreciate that this Amendment is also a late arrival on the Marshalled List, but I think that in this instance there have been discussions between interested parties and the Ministry. The Ministry is not unaware of the points involved in this Amendment—at least, I am so advised. At the outset, I have to say that this Amendment has been put down at the request of the River Boards Association, and in those circumstances I have to declare an interest. Like some other noble Lords, I have the honour to be one of the Vice Presidents of that Association. River boards are concerned with the works to be carried out under Clause 6 of this Bill from two standpoints: first, land drainage and, secondly, pollution. The position so far as the first is concerned, as I readily agree, has been to some extent met by the applying of Section 308 of the Highways Act, 1959, bringing in that section by subsection (3) of Clause 6. But it will be noticed that Section 308 of the Highways Act, 1959, applies only to main rivers as being the only watercourses under their jurisdiction.
The problem with which this Amendment seeks to deal is this. Few, if any, of the ditches within the scope of Clause 6 of the Bill would be of sufficient size and importance to justify being designated as main rivers. Therefore, as the Bill stands, unless this clause is amended, the river boards would have no control at all over the operations of the highway authorities. Without in any way

239
reflecting on the admirable work of local authorities and highway authorities, I am advised that experience has shown the necessity for some measure of control, because in the past highway authorities have used pipes of insufficient capacity, resulting in flooding of the surrounding land. The Association believe that it would be in the interest of both parties for consultation between the highway authority and the river boards to take place. All that is asked for is consultation. Obviously the last word will have to rest with the highway authority if they take action against the advice of the highway authority.
There it is. There is nothing which the river board can do in the matter. But surely it is not too much to ask that, before action is taken which may result in damage and loss to very valuable agricultural lands, perhaps owing to inexperience in the problems involved, the river boards' wealth of experience should be placed at the disposal of the highway authorities. I should emphasise that it is consultation only that we are asking for in this Amendment.
So far as the second part of the Amendment is concerned the interest of river boards from the pollution angle is to ensure that no polluting effluent is discharged into the substituted pipe which from there finds its way into a water course. A highway ditch is of course a water course for the purpose of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, but a substituted pipe for a water course would not be a water course, as I am advised. That means that the
situation which the river boards particularly wish to guard against is this. No connection is made to the pipe which is substituted for the water course by another pipe draining the adjoining land. As matters now stand such a connection if made to a water course would require the consent of a river board. In other words, this clause, as it stands, by converting a water course into a piped method of disposal lessens the powers of authority of the river boards and there would be no opportunity of taking action under Section 7 of the 1951 Act if anyone discharged polluting matter into a drain, if I may use that term, which ultimately found its way into a river.
It seems somewhat strange that the Bill which we were discussing before dealing with this Bill is one for the prevention of pollution to rivers and the case which I have endeavoured to submit to your Lordships is that this Bill as it stands now without the Amendments which I beg to submit to your Lordships will actually provide opportunities for the increase of pollution to rivers. Or, to put it in another way, this Bill as it stands withdraws or lessens the powers of authority of river boards to prevent pollution. That is the case which I venture to submit to your Lordships and I sincerely trust that, if it cannot be accepted now, there may be some opportunity between the Committee stage and Report stage to see whether some measure of accommodation can be reached. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MOLSON: I hope to persuade your Lordships that this Amendment, which falls into two separate parts, is really based upon a misapprehension. I am quite sure that we are all extremely anxious to ensure that this Bill does not in any way impinge upon the provisions of the Bill which has just passed through its Committee stage, and we are all most anxious to make certain that there is no pollution of the waters.
The first point I would make is this. Clause 6 widens the powers of the highway authorities only in order to enable them to do in the interests of road safety what they have always been able to do since the passing of the Act of 1959 (which, in this matter, re-enacted a provision of the Act of 1835) for drainage purposes. Therefore it is important to consider whether it is desirable to introduce special provisions in respect of this very minor extension of the existing powers when those safeguards do not exist in the case of the major exercise of those powers. So far as I am aware—and I have made inquiries about this—there has been no ground for complaint in regard to the operation of Section 308, which, as I say, has in its present form been in operation since 1835. Therefore I very much doubt whether there is any need for a provision of this kind.

241
As regards the matter of pollution, I am advised that it would not be the case, after a ditch had been enclosed and the flowing water was passing through a pipe, that it could then be argued, or at any rate that the courts would uphold the contention, that the authority which had done so, or the landowner, was entitled to do through a pipe what he had not been entitled to do at the time when it was an open ditch. In any case, there is nothing in this Bill which affects the operation of Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, which reads as follows:
"Subject to this Act a person commits an offence punishable under this Section—
(a) if he causes or knowingly permits to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter…"
Now it is not, I am advised, the case that, because the ditch is replaced, is filled in, and a pipe is inserted to carry the water, that will have any effect upon that general provision. And that being so I submit to the noble Lord that there is no need for this Amendment.
As regards the matter of consultation, that is at the present time normally the rule and the practice. Again I am told that there has been no complaint on this score in the past, and I venture to suggest therefore that there is no need to provide for it. I would also point out that this clause does not give any right of entry, so that it would be necessary to obtain either the consent of the landowner or an order from a court; and therefore I think that this matter is abundantly covered. I hope that, with that explanation of what I am advised is the present law, the noble Lord will not press his twofold Amendment.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I wish to rise in support of the River Boards Association's desires. I therefore declare my interest, like the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I am not convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because I feel that unless this Amendment is added we, the river boards, will be prejudiced in our action, because we can deal only with main rivers: this pipe put us out of court, and we must have the power to track down the various flows of water down which the pollution is seen to have come. Therefore, I am afraid I must strongly support the Amendment so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burden.
7.52 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I think I ought to intervene at this stage, because there is another aspect of this Amendment to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. That is, if we were to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, we should be creating an anomaly in the legal position. It is not a very big one, but it is an anomaly none the less; and I am sure that noble and learned Lords, and noble Lords generally, will agree that anomalies in the law are undesirable. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, explained Section 103 of the Highways Act and drew our attention to the effect of Section 308. But one must regard the provisions of Clause 6 of the Bill as being only a very minor extension of the powers of Section 103. If we did what the noble Lord asks, and this Amendment were accepted, the protective provisions over the minor extension would be greater and wider than they are over the major powers already contained in Section 103. I hope I have made that clear. On that ground alone it is undesirable that this Amendment should be accepted. That applies, of course, to the Amendment as a whole.
Perhaps I may, as the noble Lord did, divide it into consultation and pollution—that point, of course, applies to the consultation. But I should like the noble Lord to think of this: that it would be a matter of normal sensible day-to-day administration for the highway authority to consult the appropriate river board as a matter of common sense, even if they need not do so. They would have everything to gain by doing so. if they do not, and if their efforts should cause flooding—which is really the fear in this case—the floods will do one of two things: they will either damage the adjoining land, in which case the authority will run the risk of a claim for compensation from the landowner; or they will damage the highway and they will have to put that right themselves. So they have everything to gain by consulting as a normal sensible process. It is the intention of my right honourable friend's Department, if this Bill becomes law, to issue an explanatory memorandum to highway authorities, which is a thing we always do when there is new legislation concerning highways; and among other things we propose to emphasise the great desirability of prior

243
consultation with river boards before such work is undertaken. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that from me as sufficient safeguard in the case of consultation.
On the question of pollution, I do not want to go into the technicalities. I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Molson said about this, and I am bound to say that I, too, am advised that, broadly speaking, the fears of the river boards on this are not well-founded. I am advised that in point of fact the legal argument advanced by the noble Lord is not quite right. So far as I can see, it is extremely doubtful how any pollution that took place, even through a pipe, could avoid the penalty for an offence under Clause 2. The noble Lord mentioned Clause 7 as well, and I would go so far as to say that there may be (perhaps I might call it) the shadow of a point in this. But in any case it seems to me that prosecution could still take place under this clause, since it would be a question of a pipe having been put in the ditch and the landowner having put another pipe into the ditch pipe. If it was not possible to prosecute him when it came out of the first pipe, it would be when it came out of the other—if I may put it like that. The argument the noble Lord has put forward is not quite correct, I think, and I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am bound to say I am still absolutely unconvinced. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said that no complaints have been made. But against that I put the statements of the River Boards Association—and those statements are made as a result of meetings and correspondence, and so on, from responsible officials of river boards—that flooding and other damage has taken place as a result of faulty small pipes being connected by highway authorities without prior consultation. I understand that these points have been put to the Ministry. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, says that it is only a minor extension of the powers of highway authorities under this Bill. Why not give a minor extension to the powers of the river boards? What anomaly is created there?
There is the consultation in regard to main rivers; the noble Lord will agree
244
with that—that is provided for. Why not provide for this consultation when similar work is going on? The noble Lord is quite illogical in regard to it, giving a minor extension of powers, on the one hand, but saying, "Oh, no, you create a legal anomaly if you give it to somebody else." That is the noble Lord's position.
LORD MOLSON: May I intervene? The noble Lord's Amendment will not in any way affect the powers exercised under Section 103 of the principal Act.
LORD BURDEN: I agree. The point is this. I was dealing with the expansion of the powers of highway authorities which is admittedly taking place. That is a minor extension under this Bill. The noble Lord has told us about that one extension. What the river boards are saying is, "All right, but at the same time as that minor expansion takes place, and not because we want work, we say it is in the public interest to safeguard agricultural and other land", and so on.
Look at the position in which landowners and farmers are put! Supposing there is a small faulty pipe and the farmer gets his land flooded and there is loss as a result. Look at the consequences to the farmer! The highway authority and local authority have to be prosecuted; he has to prove his case. If there had been time, some of us would have gone to the Ministry of Agriculture and asked them to say, "We have to safeguard the production of corn and other things in the national interest, and not stand on a sticky point about improving minor powers, expanding them to one and taking them away from the other."
The next point concerns a section of the 1951 Act which was read by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. He pointed out that action can be taken against a person who causes polluted matter to run into a river. The inference from that was that, if polluted matter flows from a pipe into a river, action can be taken—if it can be proved that it is polluted matter that is flowing in. From the noble Lord's remarks I draw the clear inference that my contention in regard to pipes and so on is not valid. I could not say that it would not "hold water", because we are talking about it holding something other than water. Supposing the highway authority connects a pipe

245
which allows polluted matter to flow into the main pipe. Is the river board to take action against the local authority?
That is the sort of dilemma with which one is faced. As I say, I am absolutely unconvinced in regard to this matter. If there were more time to look at it in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, whose responsibility it is to safeguard agriculture, I am sure they would say that these two Amendments are put forward by responsible people, knowing what is necessary in order to safeguard the interests which are entrusted to their care. I do not withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Supplementary provisions as to removal of obstructions from highways]:
8.3 p.m.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: On Clause 9 there are three manuscript Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out
"except where the obstruction was caused by some other person".
The noble Lord said: I must first apologise to your Lordships for putting down a manuscript Amendment at such short notice. This was due to certain misunderstandings. There are three manuscript Amendments and, with your Lordships' permission, I will take all three together. As there are not many copies, I think I should read out the Amendments. They are to Clause 9, at page 7, line 17, to leave out from the beginning to "recover" in line 18; in line 19, after "caused" insert "or contributed to"; and in line 24 to insert at the end
", so however that no such expenses shall be recoverable from a person who proves that he took reasonable care to secure that the thing in question did not cause or contribute to the obstruction."
The effect of these Amendments is that paragraph (c) will read:
"recover from the owner of the thing which caused or contributed to the obstruction"—
246
and so on to the end of the paragraph—
"conferred by this subsection, so however that no such expenses shall be recoverable from a person who proves that he took reasonable care to secure that the thing in question did not cause or contribute to the obstruction."
The Amendments raise a small but I think not unimportant point. It was a point which was referred to on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Clause 9 deals with the question of the obstruction of highways, and paragraph (c) deals with the recovery of the cost of removing the thing which obstructs the highway—it may be a tree or a fall of earth or a dry stone wall, or something of that kind. Under the Bill as it stands, if a tree falls, or there is a cloudburst and a lot of earth is brought down on to the road, or some motorist knocks down a wall and the stones are in the highway, and the highway authority decides to recover the cost of removal, the owner has no defence unless he can put the blame directly on to some other person. Therefore he may be liable to pay for something for which he is in no way responsible. I feel that this is contrary to the general principles of Common Law and equity.
These Amendments seek to ensure that if the highway authority seeks to recover the cost of removing the thing, the owner of whatever causes the obstruction will not be liable if he can prove—and he has to prove it—that he took reasonable care to secure that the thing in question did not cause or contribute 'to the obstruction. In fact, if what happens could not have been foreseen or was caused by circumstances outside the owner's control, then that would be a defence to the owner against a claim by the 'highway authority for the cost of removal. I shave tried to make myself clear. It is a rather complicated point. I beg to move the first of my manuscript Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("recover") in line 18.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MOLSON: I think the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has made out a strong case for the acceptance of this Amendment. It was one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on Second Reading. At that time 1 was inclined to doubt whether it was in accordance with the existing principles of the law. And I believe that

247
with a Bill of this kind we ought, so far as possible, to try to maintain the general principles of the law that applies as regards accidents of all kinds. I am now satisfied that this Amendment is generally in line with the existing law. I feel that it would be a hardship upon an individual, where he has taken all reasonable care to ensure that an accident does not happen, and what could not have been reasonably foreseen happens; and I see no reason why he should be penalised in that way. I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think it is necessary for me to speak on this, because this is the very point I advocated on Second Reading, and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lard Molson, has had the good sense to accept it.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I must declare an interest in this matter as I have trees on the verge of a road. I am in favour of the Amendment: it seems to me very sound. But as a matter of precedent, it appears to me that a manuscript Amendment of this very considerable importance moved in Committee requires some explanation. Surely we could have had some notice of the Amendment, since it was mentioned in a Second Reading speech, and if that was impossible it could have been put down for the Report stage. As something of a stickler for precedent, I must criticise the fact that we are faced with a manuscript Amendment in this matter, and I hope that we may receive some explanation.
LORD MOLSON: Many of us have protested this afternoon at the short time we have had for our Amendments. I do not know where the blame lies. If any attaches to me I will gladly accept it, but we have had to do a good deal of rapid thinking. There has been consultation between the people concerned. I have certainly been willing to be convinced by what I believe to be sound reasoning. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh. I entirely agree that the moving of manuscript Amendments is extremely undesirable, but in view of the fact that an Amendment of this kind had been advocated by the noble Lord, the Deputy Leader of the
248
Opposition; that it had been pressed by the Central Land Owners' Association; that it proved to be acceptable to the Government, and that I was convinced that it was just—for all those reasons it seemed to me to be a case where we should use both the flexibility of our minds and of the procedure of this House and accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMHERST of HACKNEY: I beg to move the second Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("caused") insert ("or contributed to").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I beg to move the third Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, at end insert, ("so however that no such expenses shall be recoverable from a person who proves that he took reasonable care to secure that the thing in question did not cause or contribute to the obstruction.").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
Adoption of private street after execution of street works
". The proviso to subsection (1) of section two hundred and two of the principal Act as hereby repealed and the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1):—
(1A) If within the period aforesaid the owner of the street or, if more than one, the majority in number of the owners thereof by notice to the authority object to the street being declared a highway maintainable at the public expense, and the objection is not withdrawn, the street works authority may, after the expiration of that period, apply to a magistrates' court to appoint a time for hearing and determining the objection so made within that period and shall serve on the objector or objectors notice of the time and place so appointed. The costs of any proceedings before a magistrates' court in relation to such objection shall be in the discretion of the court."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is really to alter the proviso to Section 202 (1) of the Highways Act of 1959. This subsection is in these words:
"When any street works have been executed in a private street, the street works authority

249
may, by notice displayed in a prominent position in the street, declare the street to be a highway which for the purposes of this Act is a highway maintainable at the public expense, and on the expiration of the period of one month from the day on which the notice was first so displayed the street shall become such a highway provided"—
and this is the proviso which I suggest we should amend—
"that the street shall not become such a highway by virtue of this subsection if, within the said period, the owner of the street, or, if more than one, the majority in number of the owners thereof, by notice to the authority object."
Your Lordships will observe that by the proviso a street works authority can, by the mere formality of the service of a notice of objection by the owner of the street, or, if there are more than one, a majority of their number, be precluded from adopting a private street as a highway maintainable at the public expense. The Urban District Councils Association take the view that arbitrary action of this kind should not in fact be available and that a measure of independent adjudication should be provided to determine any such objection. They suggest—and this is what, in effect, appears in the Amendment—that the appropriate body to determine such an objection is a magistrates' court who, by Section 178 of this Act, are authorised to determine objections made by owners of premises to proposals of a street works authority to carry out private street works, and therefore appear to be the right authority to determine a dispute of this kind. I hope your Lordships will make this reasonable Amendment to the Bill and on that basis I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHESHAM: I wonder whether I may be allowed to step slightly out of order and ask your Lordships' leave to say something on this Amendment and say it only once, because it is the same as I was proposing to say on the next Amendment, as and when the noble Lord comes to move it. Of course, I could say the same as I said earlier about the noble Lord's first Amendment on the Paper appearing rather late, but I do pot do so because fortunately this Amendment does not raise the same kind of rather important point of principle as was raised by his first Amendment.
250
All I have to say is that I believe your Lordships consider this Amendment is acceptable and that the provision which it makes is probably quite useful, even if not to the extent that I greet it with the most tremendous enthusiasm. But certainly I do not know of any reason for not accepting this Amendment, although I am sorry I must say that if your Lordships do see fit to accept it then the drafting, I think, will require a little attention. It is a little suspect. It may be necessary to consult with the noble Lord about putting down a redrafted Amendment if your Lordships accept it at a later stage, but for drafting reasons only.
LORD MOLSON: With some difficulty because of the shortness of the notice, I have consulted the County Councils Association about this Amendment, and although they show no great enthusiasm for it and doubt whether there is any great need for it, they have no strong objection to it. Therefore I am happy to accept this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and I hope it will prove acceptable to your Lordships.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very grateful for the reception which this Amendment has received. If not enthusiastic, it is at any rate sufficient to carry it through. I need hardly say, in respect of the drafting, that if there is anything wrong with it I shall be very happy indeed to accept the advice of the Government's draftsmen. May I ask whether it would be better to withdraw it now and put it down at the next stage, or should it be accepted now?
LORD CHESHAM: I think the more customary procedure is to withdraw it, on the undertaking that the drafting will be looked at, and to put it down more or less formally at a later stage.
LORD CHORLEY: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
Contribution by street works authority to expenses of street works
". In subsection (2) of section two hundred and ten of the principal Act (which empowers the street works authority to bear the whole or a portion of the expenses of any street works

251
which would otherwise be apportioned on or to the owner of any premises of which only the rear or a flank fronts the street) the word 'only' shall be omitted."
The noble Lord said: This is really an Amendment which I put down some time ago to another Bill but which the Government spokesman felt would be more appropriate in this Bill, which was known to be coming along. Therefore, on the basis that it would be acceptable later, I withdrew it then. The point concerns the contribution by street works authorities to expenses incurred in street works. Subsection (2) of Section 210 of the Highways Act, 1959, is in these terms:
"Without prejudice to their powers under the foregoing subsection, a street works authority may at any time resolve to bear the whole or a portion of the expenses of any street works in their area under the code of 1892 or the code of 1875 or under a provision in a local Act relating to such works, being expenses which would otherwise be apportioned on, or to the owner of, any premises of which only the rear or a flank fronts the street, and where an authority so resolve the liability of the owner of those premises in respect of those expenses shall be treated as discharged or reduced accordingly".
Your Lordships will observe that, as at present enacted, the power of a street works authority to contribute to the expenses of an owner of premises fronting a street under this provision is restricted to the expenses of an owner having only either a rear frontage or a flank frontage. There is a good deal of experience which has shown that, by reason of the direction of the boundary line of a street, an owner of premises liable to apportionment and street works charges may have both a front and flank frontage to a street, but by reason of the limitation of the provisions to which I have referred—that contributions may be made towards 'the expenses of an owner of premises having a flank frontage only—no contribution can be made to an owner in such circumstances towards the expenses of his flank frontage; and it is desirable, it seems, that a contribution towards the flank frontage may in these circumstances be made at the discretion of the street works authority. This could also be achieved by the slight amendment of deleting the word "only" from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 210 of the 1959 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MOLSON: There is an expression in colloquial conversation, "climbing on to the bandwagon". I have never quite known what a bandwagon is. I do not know whether it is a wagon which contains or carries a band; and, if so, I do not know why people should want to climb on to it. But anything in the nature of a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill tends to' be treated in both Houses as a bandwagon, and I am very glad indeed to think that the noble Lord, who has had this Amendment in mind for a long time and who was unable to get it incorporated in another Bill, should have been, as I hope he will be, more fortunate in the case of my Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I am very anxious indeed to provide transport for all good passengers, and I shall be very pleased if your Lordships will agree to the addition of the new clause moved by the noble Lord.
LORD CHORLEY: I like the noble Lord's bandwagon, and am very pleased to climb on to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

POLICE FEDERATION BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (ALLOWANCES) BILL
8.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lindgren I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, after Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:
Reports on payment of expenses and allowances
". It shall be the duty of the appropriate committee or clerk of each local authority to report, not less than quarterly (in the public agenda and report of the council), the payments of expenses and allowances to members of the council and co-opted members of committees."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment Which stands in my name, and perhaps I ought briefly to explain its purpose. What I want is for local authorities, or public authorities, to be required periodically, not less frequently than once a quarter, to report to the council the claims which have been made by each member of the council, and for there to be a rough classification of the heads under which each member of the council makes that claim. It is perfectly true that a local government elector can go to the council offices and effectively demand the right to see particulars of the various claims, but it is rather a labour for him if he is going through them all, and there will be very few electors who will take the trouble to-day. It is quite true that, by the same means, a local newspaper could go—indeed, a few of them have done so—but, in the main, there is not much trouble taken about it. Therefore, I think this requires to be made mandatory, and to be part of our effective law.
It may be argued that it is not quite right for councillors' receipts under these local government expenses to be divulged to the public, possibly to cause controversy about them, but I think that would be an ineffective argument. The salaries of Ministers of the Crown are widely known, and the salaries of Members of the House of Commons are widely known—it is £1,750 a year. It is also widely known that your Lordships receive three guineas a day attendance allowance so long as you attend. Therefore, we are in the light of day; everyone knows the recompense or expenses which are allowed; and I do not see why that should not be so with local authorities.
On the whole, we can be proud of our local government: it is straight, honest and upright. But there have been a few cases in various parts of the country
254
where either there has been criticism or the district auditor has surcharged—and not all cases have reached a final conclusion. I admit that I am a Puritan in local government. I like British local government not only to be upright, but to appear to be upright. Therefore, I think it is desirable that there should be discouragement of members of local authorities, even though there are few who go wrong, overcharging or charging illegitimately either as against expenses they have not incurred, or against expenses which it is not reasonable to charge. I think this matter should have statutory provision. It is true that the local authority itself can do what I ask in this Amendment it should be made to do. I have no doubt there are some who do it, but there are many who do not, and I think they should all be required to do it. There have been, as I have said, a few cases of abuse, and I think that, if this Amendment were carried, it would discourage members of local authorities from being naughty in this respect, because the light of day would be shed upon expenses claimed and paid.
It is true that there is another difficulty. It may be said that surely the clerk to the authority, or the treasurer, as the case may be, can examine these claims, and if he has reason to feel that they are illegitimately made he can question the member about it and, if necessary, refuse to pay. But chief officers of local authorities do not like to get into controversy with members of the council, who are their masters in matters of this sort. Therefore, I understand the general practice is that no check is made on the legitimacy or accuracy of the claim. The only thing that can happen is that the district auditor may surcharge, and then the member concerned can, if he so wishes, appeal to the Minister against the decision of the auditor.
I hope very much that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships' House. There are no Party political aspects about it whatever. It is a question of good administration and of doing everything to keep our administration upright. It is not an undue interference with local government. We need not be afraid of this as an affront to the local authorities, or as an interference with their autonomy. Because, as I have said, in the case of Ministers, Members

255
of the other place and Members of this place, everybody knows what we get, and there is no reason why that should not be so in the case of local authorities. Therefore, I earnestly trust that my noble friend Lord Stonham will see his way to accepting this Amendment, and that the Government will feel that they can give it their blessing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
8.33 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has declared himself a Puritan in local government. I must confess I have always tended to look on him rather more as a Cavalier than a Roundhead; but in this particular matter we must all have sympathy with his objective, and that is that, when public money is spent on expenses properly incurred by representatives of local authorities, and indeed by other bodies mentioned in this Bill, then the public should have the right to know how the money is spent and by whom it has been received. However, I must confess that I cannot see, if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted, how the public would know any more about it than they do now, because, as my noble friend has said, it is open to anyone now to go and inspect the register or the accounts on payment of one shilling. Indeed, small provincial newspapers, such as those which I direct in South Wales, do that regularly; and how delighted the citizens of Swansea are, for example, when they read in their local newspapers precisely how many pounds, shillings and pence each member of the Swansea Council has received by way of expenses in a given period! Any newspaper, as my noble friend suggested, can do the same.
My noble friend's Amendment in fact says that:
"It shall be the duty of the appropriate committee or clerk of each local authority to report"
quarterly on the payment of expenses. That would be on the agenda and reported to the council; but the members of the public would not know anything about it unless they happened to attend the council meeting or unless the reporter of the local newspaper reported it. This can be done now. The other point is
256
that the present regulations do permit of the publication of the minutes of the council on expenses in far greater detail than my noble friend has asked for in his Amendment. Therefore, particularly in view of the fact that under the 1948 Act the Minister had power to make regulations in this precise matter, I cannot see that what my noble friend asks for is really necessary or is going to convey any more information to the public than they already have the right to obtain. In those circumstances, I hope he will not regard the Amendment as strictly necessary and that he will not press it.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE Perhaps I may add a word. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have considerable sympathy with what I take to be the broad aim underlying Lord Morrison of Lambeth's Amendment—namely, to close a possible loophole in our local government accounting machinery which may lead to abuses in certain isolated cases, and thus prevent any erosion of the standing of local government in this country. I am sure that that, as an aim, is something which we all share. But that said, I must say that I share most of the inhibitions which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has about this particular Amendment. In the first place, there is the point which he has made and to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, also referred, that under present arrangements local authorities do keep records of payments to their members, and these records are open to inspection by the local government electors. As I understand it, that requirement is laid upon local authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, suggested that they did it only if they felt inclined to do so.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No; it is an obligation. There is an obligation to have them open to inspection by an elector, if that is what the noble Earl wants.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes. Well, let that rest. There is, as we agree a clear obligation at the present time. There is a slight technicality Which I found a little difficult in the noble Lord's proposed Amendment. His clause refers to reports being made
"not less than quarterly (in the public agenda and report of the council)…"

257
I am not clear exactly what he has in mind there. Except in certain specialised contexts, I understand that the council "receive" reports from their committees and their officers, rather than "make" them, and the agenda seems scarcely the suitable vehicle, at least to me, for the publication of information of this sort. As I say, though, that is only a slight technical difficulty. But I suggest to your Lordships that there is more than a technical difficulty standing in the way of accepting this Amendment, with the aim of which we all agree. I do not think that we should take a step of this sort without careful consideration and consultation with the local authorities' associations, and there has not been the chance for that.
Finally, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that under Section 117 of the Local Government Act, 1948, the Minister has power to make regulations providing for the publication in the minutes of the body concerned, or otherwise, of the details of payments of allowances. His existing powers seem quite wide enough to permit my right honourable friend to make regulations of the sort the noble Lord seems to have in mind. I do not think, in view of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that further regulations are needed, but we share the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and in the light of his remarks I will naturally bring the points which he has made to my right honourable friend's attention with reference to his existing powers under the Local Government Act. In the circumstances, I would add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to-night.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am in a little confusion over this matter. We have, on the one hand, an argument from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that so many means already exist for the public or Press to see the expense sheets that no action is necessary. Then we have a statement from the Government Front Bench that the right honourable gentleman will have his attention called to the matter and that he will still consider the propriety of using his powers to make regulations on this matter. I am not sure that I know where I am.
258
As between the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Stonham, I can only say that your Lordships' House have always paid great deference to admitted experts. No one in the world knows more about local government than the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I very much hope that great attention will be paid by Her Majesty's Government to anything which the noble Lord has to say on this subject.
EARL JELLICOE: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like straight away to give him the assurance for which he has just asked.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The Parliamentary Secretary was a little more progressive in this matter than my noble friend Lord Stonham who I thought did not move much further. It may be that my drafting is wrong. I admit that I drafted it out of my own head.
LORD STONHAM: This is a Roundhead not a Cavalier Party.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I never quite understood the difference. But the drafting could be put right on Report stage, if the Government would help in redrafting. My noble friend says, and the Minister agrees with him, that already a local government elector can go and get information. My answer is that about one in a million may go—and that perhaps for an unworthy purpose. But good luck to them, if they go! Some newspapers pick it up, but they have to dig it out. Surely the better thing to do is to have a quarterly report in which it is all served up ready for any citizen to be able to discuss it and make his criticisms. Surely this is a very different thing from the existing somewhat hole-and-corner method of going to the town hall or county hall and digging it out.
I am rather sad that my noble friend Lord Stonham, for whom I have a high regard, should be rather resisting a furtherance of publicity for money received out of public funds. That is a sad state of affairs, which almost shocks me. I admit that the Minister has put an argument, as did my noble friend, that this
could be done by an amendment to regulations, but I should like the Minister to be more forthcoming about amending

259
the regulations. I do not think that we ought to get the consent of the local authority associations to do it. That is quite wrong. By all means consult them about the drafting, if you like, so that they can consider it; but do not ask them for their consent. It is a sheer question of public interest, and it is the duty of Parliament and the Minister to protect the public interest.
My own view is that the best way of doing it would be by regulation. I explained earlier on what I want. I want the payments to each councillor to be returned and the classification made between one subject and another. There is a great deal to be said for amending the regulations, which would have the advantage of not delaying this Bill, which would perhaps cause some inconvenience to my noble friend and his honourable friends in another place. But I think we are entitled to a more forthcoming and sympathetic consideration from the Parliamentary Secretary. The Government probably had a sight of this Amendment by Monday afternoon and they have had time to think about it. If I were the Parliamentary Secretary in this situation, I would advise him to "chance his arm" and be a little more forthcoming. I am sure that the Minister would not throw him over or ask the Prime Minister to fire him. This is so obviously right, in the public interest. I want to make it more difficult for people not to play the game, and not to make it relatively easy, with not much risk—though, as I have said, I do not think there is much abuse, Therefore, before I agree to withdraw my Amendment, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me a little more encouragement about dealing with this by way of amending the regulations and I hope that my noble friend can do so, too.
LORD STONHAM: That is precisely the reason why I have risen to my feet. I am impelled by my noble friend's view that I have shocked him and that I supported any kind of secrecy in this matter. I tried to make it clear that in my private capacity, in the newspapers in which I have an interest, we give publicity to these matters, because it is highly desirable and necessary. I wish to make only two points to my noble friend. The first is that the regulations
260
which have been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, say that everybody shall keep records of all payments to members made under Part VI of the Act 'of 1948, indicating the amounts paid to each member and the heads under which they are paid, and that such records shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by any local government elector for the area of the body. These are conditions which now exist.
The point which my noble friend is asking the noble Earl to consider is: in what way can this information be conveyed more readily to the public of whom, as my noble friend says, perhaps only one in a million bother TO go and find out the present situation? If the noble Earl could convey to his right honourable friend that we think that there should be some consideration of changing the regulations, I think that what we have in mind and my noble friend's point would both be covered, and he would be able to withdraw his Amendment with much better heart.
EARL JELLICOE: I find it difficult to resist the siren song of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but I feel that it would probably be wise for me to be a little careful about following him along the primrose path he has sketched out. However, I should like to say this. First, of course, he is quite right in saying that there is no Party point here. Secondly, again I emphasise that, so far as the aim is concerned, we are all agreed that it is merely a practical point of the best way to go about it in the light of the Parliamentary timetable and our general desire to get this Bill, which is helpful in many other ways, safely on the Statute Book. What I should like to say to the noble Lord is that not only will I bring this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend, as I have already said, but I will represent to him the views which have been expressed not only by the noble Lord, but also by the noble Lord who is sponsoring the Bill this afternoon.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am obliged to the noble Earl and to my noble friend. I am glad that my noble friend and I are in agreement that it is desirable for this to be done, and that the noble Earl opposite understands that to be so. The noble Earl has spoken with perhaps a slightly greater degree

261
of sympathy and understanding of my point of view, and therefore I hope he will present the matter to the Minister in the most favourable light that he can. It is the case that the great bulk of local authorities do not report these matters to the council, and it is a way of drawing attention to the payments made, which are not criminal in themselves, and are wrong only if they go wrong. It is right in principle that this should be done: and so is the Bill. But a council chamber is a good way of getting publicity if people want to find out. These reports can be seen in all public libraries, and it is desirable that this should be done. On the understanding that the noble Earl, while entering into no form of undertaking, will explain the situation adequately, and not without sympathy, to his right honourable friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

CROWN ESTATE BILL
8.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crown Estate Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Bill is intended to complete the reorganisation of the administration of the Crown Estate following the report of the Committee on Crown Lands in 1955 of which Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve was Chairman. The Crown Estate Commissioners who were appointed under the Crown Estate Act, 1956, were asked, as one of their tasks, to review the Crown Lands Acts so that these might be brought up to date. The existing Crown Lands Acts under which the Commissioners operate go back over the years to 1829. They set out in some detail how the Crown Estate should be
262
managed. The present Bill repeals these detailed Acts. It sets out the general duties of the Commissioners and gives them authority to manage the Crown Estate on behalf of the Crown without being tied down to detailed control over their management either by the Statutes or by the Treasury.
The Crown Estate is primarily an estate in land and the Bill provides that it should continue to be so. However, there are also valuable urban properties, some of an historic or artistic nature, in and around Landon, such as the Regent's Park Terraces, Regent Street, Carlton House Terrace, Richmond and Blackheath. The agricultural estates in England and Wales cover some 180,000 acres and in Scotland over 100,000 acres which include considerable areas of hill and moorland. There are also over 11,000 acres of forest land, the bulk of it in Windsor Forest.
The Crown Estate Commissioners have a really formidable task and I am sure the House will agree that we are indebted to Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve and his fellow Commissioners for the service they have rendered since 1956 in managing the Crown Estate. We now seek in this Bill to help them in the full and proper discharge of their duties, by giving them up-to-date powers rather wider than they now have and by removing some of the restrictions that have hampered them in the general management of the Estate.
Clause 1 puts them—for the first time—under the general statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the Crown Estate and the return obtained from it, though with due regard to requirements of good management. It also re-enacts the provisions of the 1956 Act under which the Commissioners are subject to the directions of the appropriate Ministers—at the present time my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
While the Bill in general gives the Commissioners the independence recommended by the Committee on Crown Lands, Clause 2 incorporates provisions designed to enable Parliament and the Treasury to know how they are discharging their responsibilities. These include the making of Annual Reports to Her Majesty and to Parliament, the

263
keeping of proper accounts and the submission of these to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to Parliament, and the supply to the Treasury of any information they require.
Clause 3 deals with points of management. The most important is the requirement in subsection (1) that the Commissioners shall not dispose of an interest in land
"except for the best consideration which in their opinion can reasonably be obtained, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, but excluding any element of monopoly value attributable to the extent of the Crown's ownership of comparable land."
Although the provisions and powers are largely based on existing provisions and powers, there was some criticism in another place on the grounds that the general duty of 'the Commissioners to maintain and enhance the Crown Estate, which is the new provision I have already referred to in Clause 1 (3), coupled with the instruction to obtain the best consideration which can reasonably be obtained under Clause 3 (1), may lead 'the Commissioners to be unduly exacting or avaricious in the course of their duties. This is not in fact a fair interpretation, and that is made clear by a number of important qualifications incorporated in the Bill.
First, the general duty is itself subject to the qualification that there must be due regard to the requirements of good management. There may be cases, for example in the letting of farms, where it would not necessarily be good management to take the highest bid because, like any good landowner, the Commissioners would have regard to the general competence of the bidder, his ability as a farmer, his farming programme, his financial standing and his reputation. Secondly, in applying the requirement to obtain the best consideration, the Commissioners must have regard to all the circumstances of the case and this would include, for example, the use to which the land is to be put, whether for a commercial undertaking or not, and whether, and if so to what extent, that use might benefit directly or indirectly the Crown Estate.
Thirdly, any element of monopoly value is to be excluded. This arises in particular out of the difficult problem of valuing rights to use the foreshore and
264
the bed of the sea which are part of the Crown Estate, and where the Crown Estate may appear to have a monopoly or a near monopoly. The application of the Commissioners' general duties when dealing with foreshore and seabed cases has
been very closely examined by the Government and the Commissioners. Where any appreciable sum of money is involved such cases will be referred by the Commissioners to the Valuation Office who will advise the Commissioners as to what is a reasonable consideration in the circumstances of the case, after giving the valuers of the intended purchaser or lessee an opportunity to express their views. The Commissioners have agreed that they will be willing to accept the figures assessed by the Valuation Office on the basis of instructions that the Commissioners have agreed with the Government.
There are also certain qualifications contained in the following clauses of the Bill. Clause 4 enables the Commissioners to make grants of land at less than the best consideration, or to make contributions for certain public or charitable purposes provided that this would be in the interest of the Crown Estate or of persons residing or employed on the Estate. Clause 5 defines the Commissioners' special duties in regard to the management of the Windsor Estate. In this case the duty is to continue the present policy of preserving the character of the Windsor Estate as a Royal Park and Forest. But the Commissioners will be entitled to dispose of land for public use in exchange for land of a similar acreage contiguous to the Windsor Estate.
The rest of the Bill is to all intents and purposes either a re-enactment of existing statutory provisions—since this is a consolidating as well as an amending Bill—or a tidying up of the present position. Clause 7 which
deals with the powers of the Minister of Works in Regent's Park comes into the tidying up category. It may not be generally known that the Zoological Gardens occupy land which is at present divided in regard to management between the Minister of Works and the Crown Estate Commissioners. This clause will now have the effect of putting all land occupied by the Zoo under the management of the Minister of Works. My Lords, I have dealt with the main provisions of this

265
Bill, but, of course, if there are any points which other noble Lords would care to raise I should be only too pleased to clear them up in so far as I am able. In the meanwhile, I commend this Bill to your Lordships on the grounds that it carries out the recommendations of the Committee on Crown Lands, gives the Commissioners the up-to-date powers they need to carry out their duties of looking after the Crown Estate with maximum efficiency and at the same time greatly simplifies the statutory provisions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Hastings.)
9.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House approve of this Bill as the logical completion of the reorganisation recommended by the Trustram Eve Committee, and we hope that it will facilitate the task of the Commissioners. There is a curious old-world flavour about some of the Bill. It traces the Crown Estate back to the Domesday Book, the Schedule to the Bill repeals part of a Statute of Charles II, and the part about the Crown ownership of the foreshore and the seabed up to the three-mile territorial limit has an old-world ring about it. I wonder, incidentally, whether this ownerships of the seabed has been a factor in consideration of the international negotiations on limits of territorial waters.
One point on the management of the properties causes one some anxiety, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any enlightenment. He drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Commissioners are charged with the maintaining and enhancing the value and the returns from the estate with due regard to the requirements of good management, and they are told to sell only at the highest price. Those are difficult requirements to meet at the present time. There are a great many estates where it may be that they manage them well and profitably, but very much to the detriment of the general public by indiscriminate building and commercialisation of the properties. We know that the Crown are not subject to planning legislation, and it would therefore be perfectly within their rights, it seems
266
to me, for the Crown Estate to follow the deplorable example of the Minister of Aviation in allowing advertisement on buildings on London Airport. If the Commissioners are really to follow their instructions and make the maximum revenue out of the property—which I suppose is what is meant by "good management"—what is to restrain them from lapses of taste such as we have discussed in your Lordships' House to-day or yesterday?
Then there is Clause 1 (4), about the directions that can be given by the Ministers to the Commissioners, and I hope the noble Lord will tell us that the Ministers would have no hesitation in giving directions to the Commissioners to ensure that the Crown estates generally are managed and developed with due regard to the public interest, to the common good and the general amenities, and to the requirements of good planning and development.
I must say that it gives one great hope that the Commissioners do act in an enlightened way when one sees what nay have done to Regent's Park Terraces. It was a long time ago when the Gorell Committee made the first recommendations for those Terraces, and I think it was the Government of which my noble friend Lord Attlee was Prime Minister which authorised the first steps for restoration. I see that work is going on actively now in restoring the Terraces, and a particularly ingenious piece of restoration and reconstruction has been done in Park Crescent whereby the front elevation of the Crescent has been reconstructed as an exact replica of the original, and yet behind it there are eight storey blocks of flats in the luxury class, which I imagine will bring in considerable revenue to the Crown Estate.
I think the Nash Terraces as a whole have been most excellently dealt with by the Commissioners: they have acted in the most enlightened way and have taken the best advice; and that encourages us to hope that they will act in an equally enlightened way in the future. But, all the same, there is a conflict between the requirements of good management and those of good planning and the Minister's power to give directions. I hope that that reserve power will never have to be used, but I see it is there in reserve so we may be confident that

267
the estates will continue to be managed to the best advantage of all of us.
9.12 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for welcoming this Bill on behalf of the Opposition and I will try to reply to the points he made, in particular about the question of economics clashing with the public interest. Of course, as the noble Earl has pointed out indirectly, and as everybody knows, the revenue from Crown estates go to the Exchequer, and they are run on behalf of Her Majesty for the public benefit.
When it comes to planning, I think that the Commissioners really find themselves in much the same position as a private landowner. The landowner normally will sell only land which will not interfere with the natural and better development of his agricultural estate. He may, on occasions, have to sell land for economic reasons, but he will be very careful where he does so. But once that land is sold, of course, the people who buy it come under planning control. The same position arises with Crown estates. Although they are not themselves subject to planning control, they become subject to planning control when people take the building leases on them. The Commissioners always seek to co-operate with the planning authorities and expect to conform to provisions contained in development plans. I hope that will satisfy the noble Earl sufficiently because the Commissioners do take great care in this matter and, as I have said, the people who take over the land, whether they have bought it or leased it, are definitely subject to planning control.
I am sure the Estate Commissioners will be grateful to the noble Earl for pointing out the fine work they have in fact done in Regent's Park Terraces. They have always taken very great care of the historic buildings in their charge and, I think quite rightly, claim to have a very good record in that respect. As to questions on direction by the Minister, as the noble Earl said, reserve powers
268
are there and can be used, but I think that it will probably not be necessary. The Crown Estate Commissioners are a body of very experienced and reputable people who have done a very good job, and I have no doubt that under this new Bill they will be able to do an even better job than they have done in the past. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the welcome he has given this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PORT OF LONDON BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO FISHING INDUSTRY
  REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO FISHING INDUSTRY