Sitting of 9 May 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITIONS

  Hotel Licences, Ross and Cromarty
  Mr. John MacLeod: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of the majority of the residents of Invergordon in my constituency. The Petition draws attention to the anomaly that the local licensing authority is treated quite differently from any other licensing authority, except Dumfries, in Scotland.
  It showeth that the Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland by which he refused to consent to the approval of the Licensing Court for Ross and Cromarty of the application by Mrs. Thomson, Salson Hotel, Invergordon, for a hotel licence. The Petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the said Licensing Court be empowered to approve applications for hotel licences in the Cromarty Firth State Management Area to provide adequate facilities for the growing tourist traffic and also local requirements in the said area.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  School Accommodation, Moodiesburn
  Miss Herbison: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of my constituents in the village of Moodiesburn, Lanarkshire.
  My constituents in Moodiesburn are seriously perturbed at the lack of adequate school accommodation for their children. This is a new housing area with a little over 900 houses. The people have been brought in from surrounding villages where the county council found it impossible to build houses because of the mineral situation. These people have not only had to leave their own villages but they now find that the education of their children is in serious jeopardy. This has been caused by lack of adequate financial assistance in the general grant for the building of schools.
  Lanarkshire Education Authority, in accordance with a circular from the Scottish Education Department, worked out a programme which would cost £16 million. It now finds that under general grant it will receive less than £7 million. Representations have been made to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but no relief is being given and schools which were to have been built in Moodiesburn are no longer to be built. It is for that reason that out of this community of 900 houses, 1,366 of my constituents have signed this Petition. The Petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that immediate steps be taken to make it possible for Lanarkshire Education Authority to provide this school.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Eggs (Imports from Poland and Roumania)
    Sir A. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade if the sales of Polish eggs in Great Britain in the week be ginning 1st May were reduced to not more than 18,000 boxes, in accordance with the undertaking given to him by the Polish authorities; and if he will state the current sales of Roumanian eggs in the British market.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I understand from the Polish authorities that for technical reasons 18,900 boxes of Polish eggs were in fact sold in the shell egg market in the week beginning the 1st May. Shipments of Roumanian eggs are well under 1,000 boxes per week.
    Sir A. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is the meaning of this phrase "for technical reasons"? Will he recall that only ten days ago the President of the Board of Trade gave a definite undertaking that the sales of Polish eggs would not be more than 18,000 cases? The number has now been reduced to 11,000 cases from this week onwards, but we do not want any fiddling about for technical reasons. Can my right hon. Friend say what this means?
    Mr. Erroll: We did not require the Poles to limit their sales to these figures, but that is what they told us they would do. They regret that they sold quantities in excess of that stated. The reason was that there was trouble over a ship which was delayed in handling cargo because of the dock strike. The Poles have told us that future sales of 11,000 cases a week will be reduced to take account of the excess of 900 boxes which were sold.

    Kilwinning Industrial Estate
    Mr. Manuelasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total cost of site preparation and servicing of Kilwinning industrial estate in the constituency of Central Ayrshire.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): £81,251.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this site was prepared and serviced during the period of office of the Labour Government, which also provided the one factory which is as yet on the site? Would not it be a good thing if the Board of Trade were to follow the excellent example of Irvine Town Council, by providing suitable buildings on the rest of this industrial estate, ensuring that they are utilised in the way in which the council has utilised its buildings in the area? Would not this attract industrialists from over a wide area?
    Mr. Macpherson: I will take note of that suggestion. The original factory is now being extended to accommodate about double the number of workers.

    Cotton Goods (Imports)
    Mr. Mappasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will circulate details of the importation of cotton piece goods and yarns for the first quarter of 1961 from the main exporting sources including Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement on the refusal of the Hong Kong cotton textile industry to renew the voluntary undertaking given by it to the Cotton Board on 31st December, 1958, regarding limitation on the export of cotton goods from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Erroll: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures of imports from the major supplying countries. My right hon. Friend has seen reports in the Press that the Hong Kong industry is not willing to renew the present undertaking when it expires in January, 1962, but, so far as he is aware, there has not yet been any direct communication between the Hong Kong industry and the Cotton Board. In the opinion of the Government it would be most regrettable if it does not prove possible to continue to deal with the problem by way of inter-industry agreement. The Government believe that an inter-industry agreement would be in the best interest of Hong Kong and Lancashire alike.
    Mr. Mapp: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on the President of the Board of Trade the need for more modern organisational and marketing arrangements? Will his right hon. Friend also keep in touch with, or consult, the trade unions concerned in this vital question? In view of President

    195
    Kennedy's action, has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about the forthcoming international conference between importing and exporting countries on the subject?
    Mr. Erroll: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend maintains close touch with all representatives of the industry. I should like to see a Question on the Order Paper about President Kennedy's proposal.
    The following are the figures:

    IMPORTS OF COTTON TEXTILES DURING JANUARY-MARCH, 1961

    Main Supplying Countries

    Cotton Cloth*

    India

    …

    62·6

    million square yards

    Hong Kong

    …

    20·2

    million square yards

    Spain

    …

    16·3

    million square yards

    Japan

    …

    16·3

    million square yards

    Total Imports

    …

    176·4

    million square yards

    Cotton Yarn

    India

    …

    3·1

    million lbs.

    Spain

    …

    2·6

    million lbs.

    Hong Kong

    …

    1·1

    million lbs.

    Italy

    …

    1·0

    million lbs.

    Total

    …

    11·8

    million lbs.

    * These figures relate to grey cloth only. They include grey cloth for finishing and re-export. Total imports of cotton piece goods of all kinds were 224 million square yards but a complete analysis by country of source is not yet readily available.

    Resale Price Maintenance (Questionnaires)
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade which organisations have been asked by him to distribute questionnaires on resale price maintenance to their members; and if he is satisfied that the selected bodies will provide a truly representative sample of opinions.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those organistions whose help the Board of Trade enlisted for the purpose of circulating the official questionnaires to retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers. Care was taken to impress upon all concerned the importance of ensuring that all types of interest were included. The answers returned are being scutinised with the same end also in view. I am glad to take this opportunity of thanking all those who have helped us by sending out questionnaires and by answering them.
    Mr. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the National Union of Towns-women's Guilds in included in the list of organisations?
    Mr. Macpherson: The National Union of Townswomen's Guilds is not in the list. That organisation sent out a questionnaire, but we felt it necessary to point out that there was some danger that it might be thought to be an official questionnaire, and the union very readily corrected it. We are grateful to the N.U.T.G. for the interest it has shown.
    Mr. Darling: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this kind of ad hoc inquiry would perhaps give misleading results? Would he consider following up the commendable initiative of the N.U.T.G. by arranging for a wider and more scientific inquiry, so that we can find out what the views of housewives really are about fixed prices?
    Mr. Macpherson: That has been considered, but there are great difficulties in drafting questions which would get answers which would not be biased in some way or other.
    Following is the statement:
    Primary distribution of the Board's questionnaires to retailers was undertaken by the National Chamber of Trade, the Parliamentary Committee of the Cooperative Union, the Retail Distributors' Association and the Multiple Shops Federation. These organisations distributed the Board's questionnaires either directly or through other representative member organisations throughout the country. Distribution of questionnaires to wholesalers was effected by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce through its affiliated chambers. The Board of Trade, in consultation with the Federation of British Industries and the National Union of Manufacturers, selected manufacturers to whom questionnaires were dispatched. A number of questionnaires were also sent to individuals and firms who asked for them.

    Committee on Consumer Protection
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade what additional questions he has asked the Committee on Consumer Protection to consider since the Committee was appointed; when he expects the Committee to report; and if he

    197
    will consider asking for interim reports on the more important questions arising either from the original terms of reference or subsequent submissions.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The Answer to the first part of the Question is, "None, Sir". My right hon. Friend understands that, if the Committee's present plans are not disturbed, there is some hope that its report may be ready in the early months of next year, though it is too soon for a firm prediction. He doubts the wisdom of seeking interim reports on particular aspects of consumer protection.
    Mr. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman's reply to the first part of my Question correct? We have had statements in the House on other questions which have been submitted to the Committee for its investigation. Would he not agree that, as this Committee has been on the job now for two years, it might be helpful to it to ask it to publish interim reports, much on the same lines as the Report which it published on safety regulations?
    Mr. Macpherson: It is not true that we have asked the Committee to investigate further questions. We have, however, from time to time sent it further evidence. In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the danger is, again, that we should simply hold up the inquiries if we asked the Committee to find, at the present time, answers to particular questions which we might put to it. We think it better that it should get along in accordance with its plans.
    Mrs. Slater: In view of the fact that the last interim Report brought out some amazing information, which resulted in some action being taken, does not the hon. Gentleman think that some "headaches" which have been sent to the Committee for consideration could be dealt with almost at once? In this way, something could be done without our having to wait for a very long time.
    Mr. Macpherson: Most of these questions are, in some way or another, related. We think it better to allow the Committee to consider them all together.

    Pekin (Trade Fair)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to arrange for a British Trade Fair to be held in Pekin.
    Mr. Erroll: The organisation of trade fairs is primarily a matter for industry, and I am, therefore, passing on the hon. Member's suggestion to the trade bodies concerned.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that some of us have been employed in manufacturing large-scale electrical plant and equipment for China for many years? Is he aware that many of China's leading electrical engineers were employed and trained amongst us? There is enormous goodwill in this. Has not the time arrived when we should be doing something on the lines I have suggested?
    Mr. Erroll: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be considered by the trade, to whom I am referring his proposal.

    British Trade Fair, Moscow
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will assist all persons in the United Kingdom who so desire to visit the British Trade Fair in Moscow, and to assist in this respect parties or representatives of firms who have exhibits in the fair; and if, in order to promote the United Kingdom export trade, he will arrange for films to be taken of the fair.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that persons in the United Kingdom who wish to travel to Moscow to see the British Trade Fair will be unable to do so. As he told the House on the 30th March, no special facilities have been arranged to enable people to attend the fair. I understand that some films of the fair will be taken.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this fair will probably be the largest ever held in Russia, and that there is great interest among managements and workpeople in this country about it? Does not he also agree that they have taken great pride in our exhibits? Would it not be a good idea to encourage this kind of thing by such visitations as this?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. It is a very pleasant proposal, and it is surely for the firms concerned to make any arrangements they wish.

    Development Projects, Scotland
    Mr. Benceasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends taking to increase development projects by the National Research and Development Corporation in Scotland.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has already asked the Corporation to bear the needs of Scotland in mind when placing contracts. The Corporation sends the Scottish Council each week a list of the inventions which it is making available for commercial licensing.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Appendix 2 of the Report of the National Research and Development Corporation, thirty-five projects are reviewed, but that only one of them is in Scotland? Is it not disgraceful that a Government Department should finance development and research in thirty-five projects and that all but one of them should be in England when the need in Scotland is so great?
    Mr. Macpherson: The difficulty is that the choice of firms with which to place contracts for development is liable to be restricted to a small number particularly interested in this kind of work. The choice is not wide open, nor can the Corporation itself set up firms to develop the various inventions.
    Mr. Bence: According to the list, the majority of these projects are in university institutions and technical colleges. There are plenty of universities and technical colleges in Scotland, yet only one project is in Scotland—in Glasgow—and the rest are in the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London and at other universities in the South.
    Mr. Macpherson: I am quite certain that the Corporation will take note of what the hon. Member has said. I have said that we have drawn the attention of the Corporation to the needs of Scotland in this respect.

    New Factories, Durham
    Mr. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have so far been made to his Department for new factories in Durham County; how many have been granted;
    200
    and what are the prospects for new factory building in 1961–62.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Since the Local Employment Act came into force, thirteen applications for new Board of Trade factories in County Durham have been received; of these eight were approved, but four were subsequently withdrawn by the applicants. Three are now being considered. The applications approved for new factories and extensions built by the Board of Trade, excluding the withdrawals, provide for 488,000 sq. ft. of space, but I cannot say how much of this building will be completed in 1961–62. If the last part of the Question refers to all new factories or extensions, whether privately financed or Government financed, there have been seventy-two applications for I.D.C.s covering 1,716,000 sq. ft. in the last twelve months.
    Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am very grateful for that reply? Could he say whether any representations have been made about the disused Army site which is not in operation at the moment? Have any representations been made that his Department should take over that site from the War Office for use for industrial development? If not, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his regional office to see what inquiries can be set in motion about such a development?
    Mr. Macpherson: I should like to have notice of that question. Offhand, I should say that the Board of Trade can take over sites only if they are in development districts.
    Mr. P. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say what all this means in terms of jobs and extra employment? Could he go out of his way to visit us in Sunderland to see a new factory which is about to be opened there in the near future?
    Mr. Macpherson: I should be glad to do anything the hon. Member invites me to do, if at all possible. The total number of jobs in prospect in the county is 14,500.

    Bankruptcies
    Mr. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of bankruptcies for the years 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960; and how these figures compare with 1951 to 1954.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Slater: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures are up or down? Has he any opinion as to the reasons for such bankruptcies?
    Mr. Macpherson: Last year the figures were up, but I do not think that it would be safe to draw any deductions from one year alone.
    Mr. du Cann: Will my hon. Friend say what is the position in regard to the revision of the out-of-date law on this subject in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which considered it and reported some years ago?
    Mr. Macpherson: That is a very different question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite a different question.
    The figures are as follows:

    1956

    …

    …

    2,136

    1951

    …

    …

    1,816

    1957

    …

    …

    2,061

    1952

    …

    …

    2,043

    1958

    …

    …

    2,250

    1953

    …

    …

    2,222

    1959

    …

    …

    2,301

    1954

    …

    …

    2,176

    1960

    …

    …

    2,801

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the changed situation concerning the Common Market, if he will institute a detailed study of the likely advantages and disadvantages to United Kingdom trade if Great Britain were to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Erroll: I am not certain what "changed situation" the hon. Member has in mind, but we have constantly under study the likely advantages and disadvantages to United Kingdom trade of various possible forms of closer economic association in Europe.
    Mr. Holt: Does not the Minister of State think that it would be useful to communicate to a wider sphere, particularly the House of Commons, what some of those advantages and disadvantages are? This movement has gone on for some time now. We have had almost incomprehensible statements of an unhelpful nature from the President of the Board of Trade. Does not the
    202
    right hon. Gentleman think that it would be more useful to set out in a White Paper some of the obvious advantages and some of the disadvantages there may be for us, so that we may understand the problem?
    Mr. Erroll: The basic facts about our trade are available from a number of publications. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the details. As to the wider suggestion of a White Paper, I doubt whether it would have any value at present, but I will make sure that the suggestion is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

    Factory, Glenrothes
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him concerning the prospect of a factory closure in Glenrothes, Fife; and whether he will make a statement on this development.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The owner of the factory concerned has recently outlined his difficulties to the Board of Trade Office for Scotland, but my right hon. Friend has no power to give assistance in such cases as this.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is just the kind of case in which Board of Trade help would be beneficial, not only to the owner, but to the people employed there? Is he aware that Mr. Thomson came to see me on Sunday and that he outlined a very promising venture? All he needs is a little help from the President of the Board of Trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently reconsider the matter in view of the great psychological importance of it in the new town?
    Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that my right hon. Friend could reconsider this particular case because he has no powers as Glenrothes is not in a development district.

    Companies (Solicitation of Money Deposits)
    Mr. du Cannasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the reasons for delay in introducing legislation to regulate the solicitation of money deposits by companies; and when he intends to introduce such legislation.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The reason is the difficulty of framing requirements, particularly as regards the contents of the accounts to be published, which will give the depositor an adequate measure of protection without being unduly burdensome or hampering to legitimate business. As regards the latter part of the Question, I regret that I am not in a position to add to previous replies on this subject.
    Mr. du Cann: While appreciating the difficulties and the points which my hon. Friend has made, may I ask if he is aware that legislation on this subject was first foreshadowed four and a half years ago in the Queen's Speech of 1956? Does not he think it time that we had legislation on this subject? Will he and his Department kindly look at the matter again to see if we can have legislation during this Session, as has already been promised?
    Mr. Macpherson: We are looking at the matter all the time. The basic trouble is that there are many ways in which this control might be effected and we have to examine all of them with the greatest of care.

    London Dock Strike
    Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the loss caused to the export trade by the recent London dock strike.
    Mr. Erroll: We have lost some export trade, but my right hon. Friend can make no estimate of the amount. Nor can he estimate the damage caused by delays in deliveries to overseas customers for the second time within six months.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case that when it is working the Port of London is an efficient port? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour to try to iron out the difficulties when a few men are obstructive and there is loss to the country as a whole?
    Mr. Erroll: The Rochdale Committee will be looking into all aspects of working at the docks, including management-labour relations.
    Mr. Gower: Should not this strike illustrate to importers and business people
    204
    the folly of concentrating so much traffic in the Port of London when they could make use of other ports in other parts of the country which have a better record of labour relations, including the South Wales ports and, above all, the Port of Barry?

  SCIENCE

    Geological Survey Board (Geophysical Department)
    Mr. Peartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give details of the staff employed by the Geophysical Department of the Geological Survey Board.
    The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): Seven scientists are employed, and four more scientists are being recruited. Ancillary staff are provided as a common service to all branches of the Geological Survey and Museum.
    Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a need to expand the department much more because we still need a proper geophysical survey of the country's resources? Will he try to recruit on a larger scale?
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I fully agree with the hon. Member that we should do more than we are doing at present. There has been great difficulty in recruiting suitably qualified staff for geophysical work in face of commercial competition and the attractions of research in the universities, but, as I said in my original Answer, we are doing our best to recruit four more scientists.

    Machine Tool Industry, Scotland
    Mr. Benceasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science to what extent he is supporting scientific research in the machine tool industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research supports the Machine Tool Industry Research Association and the Production Engineering Research Association, both of which carry out research in this field and have Scottish members. Research of direct value to the machine tool industry in Scotland is carried out at the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride, and also in the National

    205
    Physical Laboratory. In addition, a research grant on the mechanics of metal cutting has been made to Glasgow University.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the light engineering industry in increasingly having to look abroad, to Italy, France, Germany and the United States, for machine tools because of the shortage and lack of modern machine tools in this country? Will he and his Department take more energetic steps to see that there is more scientific research and development on machine tools, not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I fully agree with the hon. Member that more research and development are needed in future than has been the case in the past in this industry. However, we have only recently set up the Machine Tool Industry Research Association and we have very great hopes of it.

    University Research
    Dr. Strossasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what is the percentage of the total national expenditure on research and development which is allocated to university research.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Expenditure on research and development at universities is incurred at their discretion and is not determined by allocation. The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy recently estimated that in 1958–59 expenditure at universities amounted to about 5 per cent. of the total national expenditure on research and development. The proportion of basic research which is done in universities is, of course, much larger than this.
    Dr. Stross: Does not this figure of 5 per cent. compare very unfavourably with the amount allocated in the United States, which is about 9 per cent., and, in view of the fact that the universities are responsible for the best fundamental research as a whole, should not greater assistance be given to them?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that one has to be careful in talking of any of these percentages, first, because it is very difficult within a university allocation to allocate that part of a man's salary, that proportion of the cost of buildings, and
    206
    to say how much is to be considered the cost of research and how much the cost of teaching. Secondly, it is a fact that basic research, which is just that type of research upon which the universities particularly specialise, costs much less than applied research and very much less than development.

    Cancer Research
    Dr. Strossasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in view of the fact that progress in cancer research is limited, not by lack of finance but by the number of experienced scientists available, what plans he has for extending the provisions for post-graduate research in the life sciences.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The main bar to rapid progress is neither a lack of funds nor a shortage of experienced scientists engaged on the problem, but a relative lack of new ideas and promising leads. My noble Friend will give his full support to any encouraging new lines of study.
    As regards post-graduate research financial support continues to be provided by the Medical Research Council to an increasing number of research workers in aid of an extensive programme of clinical and laboratory investigations. A list of these will be found in the Council's last report.
    Dr. Stross: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for his Answer, may I ask him whether he does not agree that if we want to have promising ideas and new methods of approach it may well be necessary to have suitable men who are capable of delivering them to us? Does not that mean that we must give more money to promising young people in this form of science?
    Mr. Freeth: We do, of course, continually increase year by year the amount of money we spend directly, through the Medical Research Council, upon cancer research. The figure has risen from £175,000 in 1949–50 to £650,000 in 1960–61, and I am advised by the Council that merely to devote more staff to this research would not guarantee any advance towards a solution of this problem and might well retard solutions being found to other scourges of humanity.
    Sir L. Ropner: Would my hon. Friend fully accept the statement contained in the Question that cancel research is in no way limited for lack of funds?
    Mr. Freeth: I certainly would.

    Nuclear Reactors (Research)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he has now reached a decision with regard to the application from the London University Imperial College of Science and Technology for permission to build a low-power nuclear reactor.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Government has approved in principle the provision of three reactors, which will be available to Universities and Colleges of Technology for teaching and research. One will be sited in Scotland and one in Lancashire. It is proposed to site the third in the London area. This will be available to the Imperial College as to other institutions in London. Negotiations on arrangements are continuing.
    Mr. Wainwright: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that we are being very late in supplying these low-power nuclear reactors? Can he give the House some definite date on which they are supposed to be erected?
    Mr. Freeth: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Lee: Could the hon. Gentleman say where the one in Lancashire will be sited?
    Mr. Freeth: Yes, indeed; it is to be for the Universities of Manchester and Liverpool. As regards the exact site, I should like the hon. Gentleman to put a Question on the Order Paper in order that I may be absolutely accurate.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that sites have been fixed for the reactor to be used by Liverpool and Manchester Universities and, therefore, can he state where it is to be exactly, because two years ago he was given an indication about the arrangements made for Liverpool and Manchester?
    Mr. Freeth: I admit that there has been considerable delay since the projects were first mooted, but this has been
    208
    necessary in order that we should decide where best to locate the reactors in order that they could be put to the maximum amount of use by the various universities and the colleges of technology. We could not possibly permit, with public funds, reactors to be allocated for every single institution of higher education.
    Mr. Peartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give details of research being conducted in the development of small and medium nuclear reactors.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I am advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that it is not at present developing small and medium reactors.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that only recently a factory which produces small reactors, and its research organisation, was closed down: namely, the Hawker-Siddeley nuclear power research centre at Langley? In view of the fact that the Americans now have a virtual monopoly in the export of small reactors, when are we going to do something about it?
    Mr. Freeth: Small reactors, and in fact medium reactors, have already been designed by commercial undertakings. There is the point of the work which the Authority ought to do. As nuclear power is very dependent on economies of scale, and as the prospects of achieving competitive nuclear power in this country within the next ten years are based on building units of large generating capacity, it is surely right that the main emphasis of the Authority's attack should be on problems relating to that. On the other hand, the Authority is undertaking research into a large number of fields of study which would be applicable both to small and large reactors.
    Mr. Peart: While we recognise that the Authority must do the main research on power reactors, this specialised field is now being neglected. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have given the Minister an example of one major firm which has been doing remarkable work in this field, and yet now it has closed down and nothing is being done?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in his final statement, but if he cares to put a specific

    209
    Question on the Order Paper, I will look into it and make certain of the degree of his inaccuracy.

    Medical Research (Cardiovascular Disease)
    Mr. Matthewsasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what knowledge has been gained by the Medical Research Council about the relationship between the hardness of local water supplies and mortality from diseases of the heart and arteries.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: A recent statistical inquiry undertaken by the council in the county boroughs of England and Wales has shown that the death-rate from cardiovascular disease tends to be higher in areas with soft water supplies. It is not yet known, however, whether the relationship between water softness and cardiovascular disease is one of cause and effect.

    Hydrofoil Craft
    Mr. Gowerasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what official United Kingdom experiments have been made with hydrofoil ships; what were the results; what were the maximum speeds obtained; and what are the plans for future development of ships with under-water wings.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: No research work specifically concerned with hydrofoil craft has been carried out since the war by D.S.I.R. Some experiments have been made at the National Physical Laboratory to measure the performance characteristics of foil sections considered suitable for propeller blades. The results so obtained are of general value and can be applied to non-cavitating type foils for hydrofoil craft.
    Mr. Gower: Is it not astonishing that a country with our maritime traditions has done virtually nothing in this field, in view of reports of what has been achieved in Scandinavia and, indeed, in the United States, where they are already contemplating quite large sea-going vessels travelling at very high speeds indeed?
    Mr. Freeth: I do not think it is fair to say that we have done nothing in this country, since the National Physical
    210
    Laboratory has undertaken basic investigation into fully cavitating and ventilated hydrofoils. I would also remind my hon. Friend that this country holds the world's water speed record with Bluebird, which uses hydrofoils.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Military Knights' Houses, Windsor
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Works on what basis the rents of the Military Knights' Houses at Windsor are determined for those tenants who pay rent to him; and what has been the outlay of his Department on such houses in each of the last five years.
    The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): As the Answer is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that this Order was founded in 1348, and that the time for looking at it again is probably now due? Is he further aware that these Knights still receive a stipend, still receive their uniforms and quarters at Windsor, plus their Army pensions, that some, in fact, do not pay rates, and that some of them sit on Windsor Borough Council—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has no responsibility for who sits on Windsor Borough Council.
    Mr. Hamilton: He is responsible, Mr. Speaker, but does not answer, because he has not answered 112 letters which I sent him a week ago.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that he can only, in order, ask Questions in respect of which there is Ministerial responsibility. I do not want to rule him out of order altogether on that, but he must confine himself within that principle.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say why there is nearly £2,000 in his Estimates for the repair and maintenance of these houses, which shows an increase of more than 30 per cent. on last year, whether in fact the Knights pay rates or whether the houses are subject to the Rent Act?
    Lord John Hope: As I have said, I will put the whole Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not

    211
    now?"] The reason I do not give it now is to save the time of the House.
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Following is the Answer:
    Rents of four houses of the Lower Foundation are assessed by my Department in accordance with the terms of the Rent Restriction Act of 1957; the fifth house was let in 1957 at a rent based on the market value which is above the controlled limit. I receive 20 per cent. of these rents towards the cost of maintenance and repairs to the structure. The cost of such maintenance and repair of the five houses in each of the last five years has been £390, £175, £240, £230 and £250. Tenants are themselves responsible for internal decoration and repair.

    Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings (Opening Hours)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works whether he will arrange for all of his Department's buildings open to the public to be opened for the full period of summer time in April and October on both Sundays and weekdays for the same hours as during the period from May to September.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Richard Thompson): Opening hours at ancient monuments and historic buildings in my right hon. Friend's care are regularly reviewed in the light of demand. In most parts of the country the likely demand would not in my view warrant the extra cost of extending the hours of admission. There may, however, be a few cases where extension would be justified and I am considering this.
    Mr. Parker: As we have extended British Summer Time in order to try to persuade tourists to come to this country, surely we should give the tourists the benefit of that extra time when they do come here?
    Mr. Thompson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the hours of opening have in the past been related to British Summer Time. They
    212
    have, in fact, been related to public demand which, I think, depends much more on the season of the year—holidays, and things of that kind.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Flood Relief Funds (Government Contributions)
    Mr. du Cannasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT an up-to-date list of contributions which Her Majesty's Government have made to local relief funds for the alleviation of distress resulting from flood disasters in 1960; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I will, as requested, circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Exchequer payments on account amounting to over £690,000 have been made to thirty-one local flood relief funds. Total voluntary contributions to all local flood funds exceed £210,000.
    Of the £1,500,000 voted in 1960–61, £652,442 18s. 8d. was issued as grant-in-aid up to 31st March. The balance was surrendered.
    Exchequer payments continue to be made as required. The money will be accounted for on the main Vote of my Department, where it will be shown as grant-in-aid. Parliament will be asked to sanction this expenditure by means of a supplementary Estimate for 1961–62 to be presented in due course. Pending the voting of supply, issues are being made from money advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
    Mr. du Cann: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very full Answer, but is he absolutely convinced that all claims by private persons are being, or will be, met happily and satisfactorily? Can he say what the total liability on the Government in this respect will be?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot yet judge what the total liability will be. I have every reason to believe that the flood relief funds are dealing absolutely fairly with all the claims made, but until the claims

    213
    have all been assessed and settled, no one could put a total to them.
    Following is the list of net Exchequer advances to local flood funds:

    —

    £

    s.

    d.

    Bath Flood Relief Fund

    60,000

    0

    0

    Bathavon Flood Relief Fund

    2,150

    0

    0

    Beaminster R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    3,650

    0

    0

    Bridgwater R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    1,725

    5

    10

    Bridport B. and R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    2,300

    0

    0

    Brotherton (Osgoldcross R.D.) Flood Relief Fund

    47

    0

    0

    Calne Flood Relief Fund

    100

    0

    0

    Cottam (East Retford R.D.) Flood Relief Fund

    15,778

    7

    10

    Denby Parish Flood Relief Fund

    711

    14

    0

    Devon and Exeter Flood Relief Fund

    140,000

    0

    0

    Dulverton R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    3,750

    0

    0

    Eastleigh Flood Relief Fund

    350

    0

    0

    Frome U.D. Flood Relief Fund

    144

    2

    0

    Heanor U.D. Flood Relief Fund

    895

    11

    10

    Hereford City and County Flood Relief Fund

    28,200

    0

    0

    Horncastle Flood Relief Fund

    35,600

    0

    0

    Keynsham Flood Relief Fund

    1,020

    0

    0

    Lewes Flood Relief Fund

    10,700

    0

    0

    Maidstone Flood Relief Fund

    500

    0

    0

    Isle of Wight Flood Relief Fund

    10,618

    0

    0

    Norton-Radstock U.D. Flood Relief Fund

    2,250

    0

    0

    Repton R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    1,400

    0

    0

    Romsey B. Flood Relief Fund

    188

    0

    0

    S.E. Derbyshire Flood Relief Fund

    6,072

    16

    8

    Shrewsbury Flood Relief Fund

    6,000

    0

    0

    Taunton B. and R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    5,000

    0

    0

    Wales and Monmouthshire Flood Relief Fund

    335,000

    0

    0

    Warmley R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    1,400

    0

    0

    Wenlock B. Flood Relief Fund

    400

    0

    0

    Williton R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    16,000

    0

    0

    Wincanton R.D. Flood Relief Fund

    114

    14

    3

    £692,065

    12

    5

    Gas Liquor (River Foliation)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a further statement on research into the question of gas liquor and its effect on river pollution.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I can add little to the information sent to the hon. Lady last October. I understand the pilot
    214
    scheme at Southall is showing encouraging results, but that it is too soon to reach any firm conclusions after only a few months' trial.
    Mrs. Slater: But does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise how very important this is to every local authority? Is he aware that Stoke faces a dreadful situation, and that unless something is done about this gas liquor a whole sewerage system may be put out of operation, when a local authority such as ours will be faced with a colossal bill? Can he not do something more urgent about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady should be encouraged by the preliminary results, but those doing the research cannot command results; they can only go on with research.

    Holiday Camp Project (Stansgate)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the projected holiday camp development at Stansgate, Essex, and of the threat that it represents to the amenities of the Blackwater estuary; and if he will take steps to protect this hitherto relatively unspoiled coast from such development.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend understands that the local planning authority has such a proposal under consideration. He has no doubt that it will have due regard to its effect upon amenity, and since it would involve a substantial departure from the development plan, that it would not grant permission without consulting him.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, when that consultation takes place, the Minister will bear in mind that besides this project there are a number of applications for caravan sites in the neighbourhood, and that there is a serious risk that this unspoiled stretch of river quite near London will be turned into just a swarming shanty-town unless he does something about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: I must be careful, since this may come to my right hon. Friend for decision, but my right hon. Friend would not be likely to give consent for this without a public inquiry.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern there is about the amenities of the countryside in other parts of Essex as well? Is he in touch with the Civic Trust in such matters? It seems that the Trust's advice should be sought about a great deal of the development at present taking place in the countryside.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend's status has to be preserved because of his appeal jurisdiction and, of course, such amenity interests can be represented at inquiries.
    Mr. B. Harrison: As this area is in my constituency, can my hon. Friend look very carefully at the whole planning position? We have the Central Electricity Authority taking one line, and barring planning in one area, and now we have this other problem in the coastal areas.

  HOUSING

    Immigrants
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in view of estimates now being made that immigrants this year may reach 150,000, what special arrangements he is making to provide houses or flats for such a number additional to the present housing programme.
    Mr. Brooke: As the great majority of immigrants on arrival do not need family accommodation, I do not think that there is warrant for the assumption that new houses and flats should be built in proportion to the numbers entering the country. So far as families are concerned, it is the practice of local authorities to assist the rehousing of settled immigrants in the ordinary course of their slum clearance and other housing activities, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these immigrants want accommodation somewhere, and that the building trade's present and future programme is fully stretched? Would he tell his right hon. Friends and colleagues that we cannot take 150,000 persons this year on top of our present housing programme?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not know the basis of my hon. Friend's estimate of 150,000. I certainly would not be a party to any special building on grounds of race or colour. I think that by far the best thing is for us to maintain a high standard of building.

    Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that many of the county court judges in London, the Home Counties and some provincial areas are gravely concerned at the impending expiry of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958, on 31st July next when they will no longer have any powers to give protection to tenants of decontrolled premises on hardship grounds; and whether, in view of their especial knowledge of the day to day working of this Act, he will consult with such county court judges as to the desirability of extending the Act for a further period.
    Mr. Brooke: Neither my right hon. Friend, the Lord Chancellor nor I have received any representations from county court judges. I do not think that any special action is called for.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the county court judges do not think it part of their business to initiate legislation? They do not approach the Lord Chancellor or my right hon. Friend—they approach us, so that we can put it to my right hon. Friend. Will he hastily initiate some discussion on these lines because, although the cases of hardship may be limited, those that are hard are very hard, and something must be done to protect these people? We do not propose to stand by while an old gentleman of 86 in my constituency—with a crippled daughter in her sixties—who has been 61 years in the same house, is about to be thrown out. That will not be done without protest.
    Mr. Brooke: The number of cases coming to the courts under this Act is, in fact, falling all the time. If there is any question of the owner of the house seeking an extortionate rent the local authority can make a compulsory purchase order. If it is a case of some very old person, such as my hon. and learned

    217
    Friend has mentioned, who cannot otherwise get accommodation, that is unquestionably the sort of case in which the local authority ought to take special action.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the necessity for this Act arose because he under-estimated the hardships that would be caused by the Rent Act? It would be a great pity to cause further hardship by making a similar under-estimate on this occasion.
    Mr. Brooke: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no under-estimate is being made.

    Insurance
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what answer he is sending to the Cardiff City Council's proposal that a national scheme of insurance should be set up to cover all risks not normally covered by the ordinary comprehensive householder or personal accident policies.
    Mr. Brooke: This suggestion will certainly be considered. But I am not in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: Would the Minister consider calling in the insurance companies as well as the local authorities for a discussion of how this comprehensive system of insurance might be made really comprehensive, instead of being as it is at the moment?
    Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave this with me for the time being. Statements have been made that the Government are looking at the whole problem in the round now that the winter floods are over. I have not anything further that I can say, but I am quite ready to follow up all suggestions, including that of the hon. Gentleman.

    Compulsory Purchase
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that it is now possible for private landlords, in an area to be acquired compulsorily by a local authority for redevelopment, to spend substantial amounts of money on improvement of a
    218
    house and soon afterwards to claim compensation at market value when the house is demolished; and whether he is considering legislation to prevent this.
    Mr. Brooke: It is already provided in paragraph 8 (5) of the Third Schedule to the Housing Act, 1957, that improvements effected after notice is given of a compulsory purchase order, and carried out with a view to increasing compensation, must be ignored in assessing compensation.
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether it is his policy to confirm compulsory purchase orders made by local authorities on residential property under the Housing Act, 1957, in order to prevent the eviction of a tenant, in circumstances where the rent asked by the landlord is over five times the gross annual value.
    Mr. Brooke: I think it would be unwise to take any particular multiple of gross value as the point at which rents of decontrolled properties can be said to be exorbitant. Values of property have risen since 1939, more in some places than in others. Moreover, the other conditions of the tenancy need to be examined as well as the rent demanded. Each case has to be decided on its merits.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that he has just refused to confirm a compulsory purchase order in a case in my constituency where the family is being evicted under the Rent Act and where the borough council has asked for a compulsory purchase order and where the rent being asked is more than five times the gross annual value?
    Mr. Brooke: This is a case in which the borough council made a compulsory purchase order and partly, at any rate, as a result of that, the rent being asked has been reduced from £400 to £300. That rent, which includes a sum for landlord services, I calculate at four and a half times the gross value.
    Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case which I have in mind he has refused to confirm the compulsory purchase order and that the rent being asked is in fact five times the gross annual value? Will he undertake, if that is so, to look at the case again?
    Mr. Brooke: We are considering the same case, but the right hon. Gentleman calculates the rent at five times and I am allowing for the fact that, by common consent, the rent includes something for landlord's services.

    Development Programmes (Parish Councils)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that rural district councils give advance information to parish councils regarding proposed future housing development programmes in their parishes.
    Mr. Brooke: Normally each parish is represented on the rural district council, and I would hardly have thought that special legislation to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion was justified.
    Mr. Dance: Is my right hon. Friend aware that development is going on in rural villages where the villagers have had no knowledge of it at all? I know of one village, for example, which consists of a hundred houses and where plans for building another hundred, doubling the size, are well advanced. That will alter the whole character of the village, and it is causing bitter resentment among the villagers. Does that encourage local people to sit on parish councils?
    Mr. Brooke: I advise the people in that and other villages to vote at the rural district council elections this week, because every parish has its own representative on the rural district council.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE)
  Mr. C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister if his assurance to the hon. Member for Louth on 16th July, 1957, that the provisions of a free trade area in Europe would not whittle away the safeguards and protections enjoyed by British agriculture still holds good; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As has been made quite clear, both in this House and outside, satisfactory arrangements in respect of the interests of British agriculture, our fellow members of the Commonwealth
  220
  and our partners in the European Free Trade Association are a precondition of any closer association with the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend remember saying something even stronger to me about three years ago? He said:
  "…the provisions of a Free Trade Area could not extend to agricultural products."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 943.]
  Is he aware that the farmers in my constituency are getting rather nervous and fear that the bad old days of the 1930s are coming back again, and that they would be grateful to him for his reassurance that the protection which they have enjoyed will not be whittled away?
  The Prime Minister: The negotiations then, of course, were about the European Free Trade Area, which specifically included agriculture. Those negotiations broke down. I want to make it quite clear that the interests of agriculture, the Commonwealth and of our partners in E.F.T.A. must be a precondition for any negotiations to be satisfactory.
  Mr. Jay: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that in any negotiations the principle of the tariff-free entry into this country of Commonwealth exports of raw material, as well as food, which is to the advantage of the British consumer as well as British agriculture, will be preserved by the Government?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, all those matters will be fully taken into account, but we have not yet reached that point. We have had some preliminary discussions with officials to see whether there is a possibilty of negotiations being successful, taking into account what we regard as necessary preconditions.
  Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the statement, re ported in today's issue of The Times to have been made by Professor Hallstein in Hamburg yesterday, to the effect that President Kennedy had made it clear to my right hon. Friend that only full membership of the Community—
  Mr. Speaker: That is out of order. A Minister cannot be asked to comment on a statement for which he is not responsible.
  Mr. Wade: Would not the Prime Minister agree that we may get the worst of both worlds by a continued state of uncertainty? Can he say when Her Majesty's Government can make any definite statement about whether it is the intention or wish of Britain to enter the Common Market and what proposals will be put forward with a view to bringing to an end the division of Europe into two separate economic blocs?
  The Prime Minister: We are having these various discussions in order to see whether there is a basis for negotiation to be likely to be successful. As I have said very often, and I think it is generally accepted, nothing could be worse than to have a long negotiation which then broke down. It would be better to try to get a general idea of whether there is a possibility of agreement on acceptable lines.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister referred to the talks which have been taking place between the French and British officials. Can he say something about the outcome of those talks and what the next stage of the discussions is likely to be?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that some progress was made and there is to be a fresh meeting.

  ELGIN MARBLES
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister what conversations he has had with the Prime Minister of Greece regarding the return to that country of the Elgin Marbles removed from the Acropolis in Athens in 1799 and now at the British Museum.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister will be aware of the gratitude generated and the appreciation felt when we made a similar gesture in returning the national treasures of Ethiopia and Burma some time ago. Now that relations between the United Kingdom and Greece have returned to their former happy state, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of first taking copies of these antiquities and then returning them, on grounds of generosity, to a very loyal ally, causing them to be restored to their former sites
  222
  where they would certainly be likely to be seen by far more people, probably including far more British people, than they would by remaining in a musty room in the British Museum?
  The Prime Minister: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but this is a complicated question and it can hardly be solved without careful consideration. I am told that it is thought by many experts that, after their many years of careful preservation in the British Museum, the Elgin Marbles are better in that position and are certainly seen by a much larger number of people than would be the case if they were returned. There is a problem and I will certainly not dismiss it from my mind, but this is a very important matter.

  EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Chancellor Adenauer concerning the possible entry of Great Britain into the Common Market; and what reply he has made.
  The Prime Minister: I have had no communication on this subject from Chancellor Adenauer since our last talks. The Chancellor was then very helpful and that spirit has animated our subsequent talks with the Germans at the official level.
  Mr. Wyatt: As Herr Adenauer has publicly stated that he would very much like Britain to join the European Common Market, and as the Government evidently wish to do the same thing, would it not be a good idea for the Prime Minister to get into communication with him and make use of his aid and support? Does he not agree with Lord Gladwyn that since the Government have decided to do this, every day that we delay means that the terms on which we join become progressively worse?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As I have said before, it is not a question of joining. If the hon. Member means that we should sign the Treaty of Rome and that is all, then that is quite impossible and we have never even considered it with our allies. What we have to decide is whether it would be possible to associate ourselves with membership of such

  223
  an organisation, subject to a protocol or agreement reserving those important matters mentioned a moment ago.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from President Kennedy about exploratory talks between the President and President de Gaulle, with a view to preparing the ground for negotiations between the United Kingdom and French Governments on the political and economic implication of merging the European Free Trade Area and the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: Any communications of this nature which I might have would be confidential. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have observed in the agreed communiqué isued after my discussions with President Kennedy, we said that we recognised both the urgency and the importance of further steps towards the economic and political unity of Europe.
  No doubt President Kennedy will speak in the same spirit in his talks with President de Gaulle.
  Mr. Henderson: Would the Prime Minister assure the House that, so far as he is concerned, he would understand that any intervention by President Kennedy with General de Gaulle on this problem would be based on Britain's entering the Common Market in agreement with her E.F.T.A. partners and having regard to her Commonwealth committments?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and the interests of British agriculture. All those have always been regarded as preconditions. The problem remains. It is a very difficult and technical problem, as those who have studied the details are aware, of whether this can be done. I have always thought that it could be done if there was a will on all sides to do it, but I recognise the difficulty and complication in any such negotiation.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. M. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of Question No. 53 and the Prime Minister's eagerness as expressed last week to answer a Question of this type, would you grant him permission to answer it now?
Mr. Speaker: The House will appreciate that this practice is capable of defeating the rule about the time at which Questions end. I have to confine myself to occasions when the Minister asks leave to answer a Question, but that is not this case.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am fully seized of the importance of Question No. 53, but there is Question No. 44 which was beaten by a very short head. Because of the public interest in this matter, which far transcends the interest in Question No. 53, I wonder whether the Prime Minister might wish to make a statement on that and related Questions?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. Member will understand that that illustrates, most happily for me, the difficulty into which I shall get unless I stand firmly by the rules.
Mr. Parker: Does not this show that it is time we moved Questions to the Prime Minister to a quarter past three instead of having the important Questions cut out?
Mr. Speaker: I am an enthusiast for brevity on the part of everyone except myself.

SECURITY
Mr. Marsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the need for the Prime Minister to give an assurance that all appropriate steps are being taken to strengthen Government security and that counter-espionage measures are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the case recently raised at the trial of George Blake.
It was my indention yesterday to attempt to move the Adjournment of the House on this matter, but urgent issues arising out of the latter part of the fourteenth century intervened and made that impossible. I think that it would be accepted by both sides of the House that there is extreme public anxiety over the state of the nation's security services at the present time. It is also, I think, accepted by both sides of the House that this is a matter of extreme urgency. I think, too, that persons of all views would accept that where about six major

225
breaches in the security of the nation have occurred in a matter of weeks—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am unable to allow the hon. Member to make the speech which he would make were his application to be granted. I am sure that he will follow that and bear it in mind.
Mr. Marsh: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I accept your Ruling. May I, therefore, make the point briefly?
Many hon. Members believe that the Prime Minister would welcome an opportunity to deal with a matter which is so urgent, that it is impossible to deny the public importance of this, and that after this length of time the public are entitled to know exactly what measures Her Majesty's Government intend to take to meet this position.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the need for the Prime Minister to give an assurance that all appropriate steps are being taken to strengthen Government security and that counter-espionage measures are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the case recently raised at the trial of George Blake.
I am unable to hold that this falls within the Standing Order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
  (Recommitted)
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  The Chairman: Unless any hon. Member wishes to raise a point about the first fifteen Clauses, with the consent of the Committee I propose to put the Question, "That Clauses 1 to 15 stand part of the Bill."
  3.35 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: As you know, Sir Gordon, this Bill went to a Select Committee. No doubt you read the proceedings of the Select Committee. It is a fabulous, intricate document. As a result of going to the Select Committee, Clause 2 and many others were amended. I do not want to waste time, but it would be of assistance if the Minister could tell us the effect on each Clause of the Amendments made in the Select Committee.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): There was one major Amendment made in the Select Committee, dealing with the Finsbury lands, and there are a number of consequential Amendments flowing from that decision to take the Finsbury lands out of the Bill. Those were the only Amendments made to Clauses 1 to 15 in the Select Committee and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, as you suggest, Sir Gordon, we had a discussion on Clauses 1 to 15 to take in this major Amendment to which I have referred and all that flows from it.
  Mr. Mellish: It is fair to say that only one major Amendment was made in the Select Committee. I gather that we can discuss Clauses 1 to 15, or, Sir Gordon, do you want to put the Question on each Clause separately?
  The Chairman: If the Committee agrees, I will put the Question, "That Clauses 1 to 15 stand part of the Bill." If the Committee does not accept that, I will put the Question on each Clause.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Clause 2 raises special points. As the Minister recognised, Clause 2 is now

  227
  substantially different from Clause 2 of the Bill as we passed it on Second Reading.
  Mr. Soames: I accept that, and I was suggesting that we should have a discussion on the Question, "That Clauses 1 to 15 stand part of the Bill." Indeed, I should like to open the discussion to explain what happened upstairs. I should like to explain this major Amendment from which consequential Amendments flow.
  Mr. Mellish: That is suitable. Perhaps we could hear from the Minister.
  Mr. Fletcher: As a good deal of the discussion might centre round Clause 2, would it not be desirable to have the Question specifically put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  The Chairman: That is what I am trying to find out. The Committee is entitled to have it Clause by Clause, and I will put it that way.

  COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL

    Clause 1.—(THE COVENT GARDEN MARKET AUTHORITY.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Mellish: Clause 1 sets up the Covent Garden Market Authority. Perhaps we could be told the composition of this Authority, some of its general powers, and how the Minister sees it working. Perhaps the Minister could give certain assurances which are needed by this side of the Committee, because I understand the position of this Authority is somewhat extraordinary. As I understand, once the Bill leaves the House of Commons this Authority will have enormous powers. We will not be able to ask questions about it.
    For example, if I feel that the Authority is doing things inside the market to which I object, I understand that I shall not be able to question the Minister about what is happening. In the Select Committee, Mr. Gerald Gardiner, Q.C. argued on much the same lines about the setting up of this body, with enormous powers. We are unhappy about leaving the position there. Perhaps the Minister would give us some details of the Authority.
    Mr. Soames: As the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will know, Clause 1 was not amended during the Committee stage. It contains seven subsections. The first sets out that the Authority should be constituted on a certain day appointed by the Minister. Subsection (2) provides that the Authority shall consist of a chairman and a managing director and from three to six other members who would be appointed by the Minister.
    As to its powers, the best analogy I can think of—I used it during the Second Reading debate—would be the Port of London Authority. It is true that the hon. Member would not be able to put down Questions in the House about the day-to-day activities of the Authority, but it will not be the only statutory authority of which that is true.
    As I say, this Clause has not been changed.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(VESTING OF MARKET LANDS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Fletcher: The Committee may wish to spend a little time on this Clause. It was on Clause 2 and the related Clauses and Preambles to it that the Select Committee had to spend so much time. We should appreciate the effect of the changes made in the Bill as a result of the considerations and recommendations of the Select Committee. For that purpose, it is necessary to look not only at Clause 2 of the Bill as it was presented on Second Reading, and compare it with the present text, but also to look at the Preamble to the Bill as it was on Second Reading and the Preamble to the Bill as it is now.
    Clause 2 is bound up with the Preambles. If one looks at the Bill which was—
    The Chairman: Order. We do not discuss the Preamble now. We are now discussing only Clause 2, although I appreciate that they are connected.
    Mr. Fletcher: They are very much inter-connected, Sir Gordon. With respect, I submit that it might prove convenient for the Committee if we could refer at this stage to the Preamble in

    229
    connection with Clause 2 rather than to have a separate discussion on the Preamble.
    The Chairman: If the Committee understands that we shall not have a separate discussion on the Preamble, that would be satisfactory.
    Mr. Fletcher: When the Bill was introduced and given a Second Reading it contained two Preambles, which were the basis of part of Clause 2. These Preambles have been omitted and hon. Members can follow this only if they have a copy of the Bill as originally introduced with the Explanatory Memorandum.
    The Preamble recites, first, that
    "it is expedient to make further provision for regulating the market business"
    at Covent Garden and also
    "for reducing the congestion of traffic"
    in the rest of the borough, and, for that purpose, to vest in the Authority certain lands which are subsequently referred to as the Finsbury lands. I will paraphrase the wording to make it intelligible:
    "whereas the storage, elsewhere than"
    in Covent Garden
    "of horticultural produce intended to be dealt in in bulk and of empty containers…would conduce to the achievement of the object"
    originally suggested
    "it is accordingly expedient to vest in the said authority certain lands in the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury suitable for the provision thereon of facilities for the storage of such produce and containers as aforesaid."
    3.45 p.m.
    This Preamble has disappeared as a result of the recommendations of the Select Committee. There has also disappeared from Clause 2 the specific subsection (2) which provided, in effect, that what are generally known in this context as the Finsbury lands should be vested in the Authority merely as an automatic operation of this Measure so that the Authority might use those Finsbury lands for the purpose of an annex to the market for the purposes of storage therein of produce in bulk and of empty containers. Those provisions have been deleted.
    Nevertheless, as I understand the Minister—I may be right or wrong—it is still contemplated that the Authority should make some arrangements outside the
    230
    Covent Garden area for an annex, so that congestion may be relieved and that produce for some of the operations now carried on in the market—namely, sales by samples or of bulk produce—can be stored at the annex, and so that empty containers may be taken there.
    Mr. Mellish: I should have thought this a matter more appropriate to be discussed when we come to Clause 16, where power is given to the Authority to acquire land outside the market for the purpose of storing empty containers. I am wondering whether it would not be better, when discussing Clause 16, that we try hard to get assurances from the Government.
    Mr. Soames: Clause 2 is the first Clause in which the Amendment of the Select Committee begins to bite. I take it that this is the Clause on which we were to have a major discussion about the alteration made by virtue of the Amendment in the Select Committee as it affects the Finsbury lands; and, generally speaking, the small consequential Amendments growing from that. In addition, there are other discussions which we shall have, about whether the the annex shall be inside or outside the market area, which will be separate. I foresee that Clause 2 will be the Clause on which we shall have the major discussion about the Finsbury lands.
    Mr. Fletcher: On the point raised about procedure by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I do not in any way wish to curtail the debate which I think we shall have on Clause 16. At the same time, I did not feel that we could dispose of Clause 2 without some explanation of the con sequences of the changes in it. As I understand, we shall want to debate Clause 2 and Clause 16 separately. I do not think that those debates can be merged.
    The short point on Clause 2 relates to the opinion of the Minister of the effect of the changes made by the Select Committee. When the Minister mentioned them to the House during the Second Reading debate it was part of the proposal, in fact it was the essential part of the whole scheme, that the Authority should have the Finsbury lands transferred to it and that this land should be used as an annex for part of

    231
    the purposes for which the market is now used.
    That was, therefore, an essential ingredient of the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading. I am not questioning whether or not the recommendations of the Select Committee were wise. We may come to that point later. Before we dispense with Clause 2 and pass on to a discussion of Clause 16, I would like the Minister to tell the House how, in his opinion, this serious mutilation of Clause 2 affects the whole of the scheme.
    Hon. Members should remember that since the controversy in the concession of 1959 and 1960, it had been contemplated that the Finsbury lands would be used as an annex. It was because they had been earmarked, and because the L.C.C. had taken all the preliminary steps to acquire them, with a view to their subsequent transfer to the Authority when constituted, that the Bill was introduced.
    It may be that the Select Committee was right—and I know that the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) would say so—but if it was right, what becomes of the whole scheme? Is the Minister now prepared to proceed with the Bill in the absence of any Finsbury land, because a couple of years ago we were told that the L.C.C. and the City Corporation had for years been looking for an appropriate site for an annex? When there was some controversy in 1959, it did not take them long to find an annex. They found the Finsbury land and, because of that, the Ministry was able to proceed with this scheme and to introduce the Bill.
    Now, the Finsbury lands have gone, and there is no site earmarked for an annex. No site is contemplated for an annex and, therefore, a large part of this operation has disappeared. Before we part with Clause 2 the Minister should tell hon. Members whether he is really satisfied that the Bill can proceed without the Finsbury lands.
    Is the Minister now proposing that the whole scheme should proceed without an annex? Is he now saying that all the argument used two or three years ago—in which it was stated that there was an essential need for an annex—are no longer valid? It may be found in
    232
    the coming years that containers will all become non-returnable and that there will be no need for an annex for the storage of containers. If that is valid, it would support the argument for there being no necessity for an annex in which to store empty containers.
    That may not be the Minister's idea. His idea may be that an annex should be found. If so, hon. Members are entitled to know, at this stage, what prospect he has of finding a site for an annex. Has he any alternative site in mind? Is he proposing that the alternative site should be put out of the periphery of London, or perhaps somewhere nearer? Whichever alternative he advances, there would be arguments about traffic congestion. We must have more information from the Minister as to how far this radical change in Clause 2 affects the Bill, because, in my view, it largely destroys the whole case for having the Bill.
    Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is right, procedurally. We should discuss Clause 2 and the Preamble together, because they both dealt in the original Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading, with what were known as the Finsbury lands.
    We are in a difficult position and perhaps you can advise us, Sir Gordon. This Bill is, of course, a different Bill from the one which was given a Second Reading. Since it left the House after its Second Reading the Bill has been to a Select Committee and that Committee has amended it in certain respects. Would it not, therefore, be appropriate for the Minister, on each Clause that has been so amended by the Select Committee, to intervene in order to give hon. Members the benefit of his views on the changes which the Select Committee have made?
    The Bill—it is a peculiar one and a hybrid Measure, because it is half public and half private—is not as clear from a procedural point of view as it might be. With your consent, Sir Gordon, and with the agreement of the Minister, it would be advantageous for the Minister to intervene at each point where the Select Committee has made a change.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East raised the subject of the Finsbury lands not with any desire to go over

    233
    the controversy once again, but to get a clear picture of what is the Ministry's attitude to the alternative in Clause 2 and in the Preamble that has been made by the Select Committee.
    Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Since we have gone a little on to Clause 16—
    Mr. A. Evans: No.
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes we have.
    In any case, I hope that the Minister will deal with the point that by Clause 16, unless it is amended as we suggest it should be, the Authority is told that as far as practicable, it should provide these facilities outside the Covent Garden area. That point is of great significance in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East said. We all agree that it would be helpful that, where changes have been made in the Bill, the Minister should comment on them.
    The Chairman: We cannot discuss matters which arise on Clause 16 until we reach that Clause.
    Mr. Soames: There are a number of Clauses, after Clause 2, from which references to the Finsbury lands have been deleted. These were purely consequential Amendments following the major Amendment which removed any reference to the Finsbury lands.
    On the major Amendments made upstairs, it was my hope and intention to say something on each one of them as they were reached.
    The main point that has been raised so far in this debate is the question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher): how has the Bill been changed by the taking out of all references to the Finsbury lands? When they brought forward the Bill, the Government's view was that the Finsbury lands were a suitable and convenient site for the purposes of an annex, and it was laid down in the Bill, as presented to the House, that the site should be vested in the Covent Garden Market Authority.
    That was put in because the Government felt that it was essential that the Bill should provide for an annex, and we still regard that as necessary. The Government's view has not changed;
    234
    they still regard an annex as an essential feature for the clearing up of existing conditions in Covent Garden.
    4.0 p.m.
    What did the Select Committee do? It did not say that the Finsbury lands shall not be used. It decided that it would put Finsbury on the same basis as every other borough within the bounds of which a suitable site might be found. The Committee thought it fairer and wiser to make the Covent Garden Market Authority responsible for finding a site and going through all the planning processes necessary to enable it to buy and occupy the site rather than to vest the specific site on the Finsbury lands in the Authority.
    Instead of there being an annex in that particular spot, it will now be for the Authority to request the planning authority to designate a site for the purpose. From that point, it will go through the well-known procedure for purchase with a public inquiry if need be. My right hon. Friend might well think it right, in a matter of this kind, that there should be a public inquiry, but, of course, that would be for him.
    In any event, it will be for the Covent Garden Market Authority to go for whatever site it may choose. I agree, of course, that the choice is limited, but what the Government have not done since the Select Committee made its alteration was to find another site and say that that must be the one. It is now left to the Authority to find a site, and among the sites to which it could direct attention Finsbury is still one.
    The effect of the alteration by the Select Committee is not, therefore, that the Finsbury lands may not be used, but merely that that site should be treated on exactly the same basis as any other which the Authority might consider for the annex.
    As the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) said, when we come to Clause 16 we shall discuss whether the annex should be inside or outside the Covent Garden area. But the answer to the question arises on Clause 2, that is, what is the effect of the alteration, is briefly this. Instead of it being determined by the House that the Finsbury site will be vested in the Authority for this purpose, it is now open to the

    235
    Authority to choose a site, and it will thereafter have to go through the necessary planning procedure.
    Mr. Fletcher: The Minister has made the legal position perfectly clear. The effect of the deletion is that the Finsbury land will no longer be vested by the Bill in the Authority. But this means that the Authority will have to search for other land for an annex. It may find somewhere or it may not. If it does find a site, it will face all the procedural complications. It may find a site which it regards as convenient, but for which it will not receive the necessary planning permission. All this must take a considerable time.
    One additional effect of the deletion is that, instead of the Authority being able to make an early start by having an annex site fixed for it to which it could go by statutory right, it will have its operations considerably delayed. As I understood the position hitherto, it was contemplated that operations in the annex should be the first and immediate step after the passage of the Bill. Now, it may be two or three years before the Authority has its annex. I do not know. Is it now envisaged that the Authority will still have to wait to find an annex and obtain planning approval for it before implementing the rest of the provisions of the Bill?
    Mr. Soames: No. The implementation of the rest of the provisions of the Bill by the Market Authority is not affected by the change at all. The hon. Gentleman's guess is as good as mine about how long it will take the Authority to find another site. Perhaps delay will be caused. I have no doubt that this was borne in mind by the Select Committee when it considered the matter, but, none the less, it felt that this was the fairer, more equitable, and proper way to do it. It would have taken some time anyhow before the Authority could have moved on to the Finsbury lands. I cannot judge what extra delay might be caused as a result of the change. Although I accept that the change might possibly cause delay, I do not think that it will necessarily be so.
    Mr. Mellish: The change has been made, and I think that it should be said now that my hon. Friend the Member
    236
    for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) put up a tremendous fight in the House against the Bill as it originally stood. We had considerable debate about the principle of any site being used in the central area for storage, and I think that it can be said now that my hon. Friends may take great pride in the fact that that menace, to which it was intended to give legislative force by the Bill as it originally stood, has been removed.
    As I understand the position now, the Authority can go anywhere for the annex it requires. It is not confined to one particular site, but it can itself decide where the site ought to be, subject to the usual town and country planning provisions. For the benefit of the Authority, I think that it should be put on record now that, if it eventually does meet to decide that it wants an annex inside London for the purpose of storing empties, it will face the biggest battle of its life.
    All those concerned had better be quite clear about that. I can imagine nothing more obnoxious to any Metropolitan borough than having in its midst a site used purely for the storage of empty packages from Covent Garden Market.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East that the day is coming when the annex will not be required. Thanks to modern packaging and marketing systems, the return of empties will soon no longer be necessary, so what we have been arguing about may well become abortive. Nevertheless, it ought to be put on record now—I do not know whether the Authority will do us the honour of reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of the Bill—that the Authority can take it firmly from some of us that it had better not try to put anything of this kind within Metropolitan London.
    Mr. Michael Cliffe: I find it extremely difficult to follow the logic of the Minister's statement. A good deal of public money and time has been devoted to establishing that the proposal that the annex should be at the junction of City Road and Old Street was a bad one and should not stand. A Select Committee was

    237
    appointed. Thousands of pounds were spent on engaging advocates to establish that what was proposed was wrong not only for Shoreditch and Finsbury, but for London as a whole. The idea of putting the annex at one of the busiest junctions in London was regarded by most people who knew the area as absolute lunacy.
    The Finsbury lands are now taken out of the Bill, but the Minister has told us that we are almost back where we started, despite the change made by the Select Committee. If the Authority decides that it is difficult to find another site which can be regarded as suitable, it may revert to the City Road-Old Street junction for the purpose of its annex.
    Mr. Mellish: That is unlikely.
    Mr. Cliffe: Whether it is unlikely or not, the statement of the Minister is very disturbing, to say the least. I can only interpret it in the way that I have just indicated to the Committee. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will correct me.
    Mr. Soames: I do not think that I have misinterpreted either the effect or, to the best of my knowledge, the intention of the Select Committee in altering the Bill in this way. In deleting all mention of the Finsbury lands the Borough of Finsbury has been left on all fours, so to speak, with every other borough. That is all that has happened. That is not very different from what was sought by the petitioners. The Bill does not now say that the annex must not be built in this or that particular borough, but merely that a site should not be singled out and vested in the Authority without going through the usual planning procedures. Whether that was what was in the mind of the Borough of Finsbury, I cannot say. I gather from what has been said that it might have aspired for more, but this is the effect of the Amendments made by the Select Committee.
    The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says that there will be great trouble if the Authority tries to put an annex in any borough. We will have to jump these hurdles when we reach them. It will be for the Authority to get the necessary planning permission. It may be that there will be objections. They will be handled in the normal way. The hon Member appreciates
    238
    and understands that. He says that the need for the annex is fast disappearing since the use of returnable empties is diminishing. One reason why an annex is needed is to house these returnable empties, which are like tinder and are a great fire risk. I agree that the move towards the use of non-returnable contained is all to the good.
    There will, however, still be the other object of the annex, which is to prevent the unnecessary carting of very large number of crates of citrus fruits, and the like coming into the Port of London, into the Covent Garden area, when they could well be stored somewhere else, perhaps near the port.
    Mr. Mellish: I recognise that the annex could be used for the purposes which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I repeat, however, that I think that most Metropolitan boroughs, certainly those whoch are Labour controlled and probably most Conservative controlled boroughs, would strongly object to their land being used for this purpose. One of the problems that we face under Clause 1 is that the authority will be given certain powers. I agree that there will be the normal restrictions concerning appeals against compulsory purchase orders, but at the end of the day it is a pity that the fight will not be on the Floor of the House.
    The argument about Shoreditch and Finsbury and Islington is one which concerns Parliament. This is what caused the Government of 1959 and the Government of today to change their minds on this aspect. It is a pity that we are hoping that outside sources will deal with a matter which, to many of us, is very personal.
    Mr. A. Evans: The Minister has made it clear that, under the Bill as amended by the Select Committee, the Finsbury lands are not alone in the picture. The site is on all fours with other sites in the country, because the Bill is not confined to London. There may be doubt in the mind of the local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe), because the Minister is on record as having said that the Finsbury site is eminently suitable. His representative in the Select Committee agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had said on more than one occasion in this Chamber that,

    239
    in his view, the Finsbury site is eminently suitable for an annex to Covent Garden.
    Perhaps the Minister can help us further and say whether he accepts the Amendment which the Select Committee has made in the Bill, that he regards the position as open and that the Finsbury annex is not under special favour by himself or by his Ministry.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: I wish to clear up one or two points. The first concerns whether my right hon. Friend regards the Finsbury site as eminently suitable. The fact is that the matter is no longer in my right hon. Friend's control. It has now been handed over to the Covent Garden Market Authority. The Minister has parted with his rights in the matter. That is what the Select Committee intended.
    Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Authority, when it is constituted, will act under the Minister and with his approval or disapproval in finding land for an annex. That is in the Bill.
    Mr. Wise: It may act with his approval or disapproval. It will not accept dictation as to where it should look for a site for its annex.
    I wish to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe). It is true that the Select Committee deleted all mention of the Finsbury lands from the Bill, and did not add a rider to the effect that in no circumstances should Finsbury be considered as an alternative site, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is what the petitioners requested. The petitioners offered us two alternatives in the Select Committee and we accepted one of them. Whether they are satisfied now is another matter. In my view, I think that they should be, because town planning procedure provides a number of safeguards.
    As the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, I have no doubt that there will be strenuous opposition to the annex, wherever it may be proposed. But equally, as a general rule, there is no doubt that there has to be an annex and, in my view, no doubt that it must be somewhere in London.
    Mr. Mellish: We do not necessarily accept that, although it would be out of order to debate it now because it arises under Clause 16.
    Mr. Wise: There may be great opposition, but I think that it will be based on an out-of-date assumption of the precautions that can be taken against fire. The fire brigades are not despondent about being able to cope with a large number of packing cases stored in a modern building. That is the point which must be appreciated. Presumably, the annex will be the latest thing in storage facilities. Therefore, wherever planning permission is sought for an annex, most boroughs can rest content concerning the risk of fire, particularly, as has been said, it is a diminishing risk because, as each year passes, packing cases will be used less and less. The traffic problem will be argued when planning permission is sought. I have no doubt that it will be bitterly fought in every case, as it was in the Select Committee. I suggest that as the Bill stands it is a satisfactory solution to the problem which is before us.
    Mr. Cliffe: I understood the Minister to say that the Authority could go back to the site at the junction of Old Street and City Road, but Shoreditch and Finsbury, the two local authorities, have been given an interpretation by legal representatives who have dealt with the case for them that that is not so and that if a suitable site could be found, it could be established elsewhere in Finsbury but not at the junction of Old Street and City Road. That was the interpretation that we were given.
    Mr. Wise: I must correct the hon. Member. I do not have the proceedings of the Select Committee with me, but if the hon. Member refers to the Minutes he will find that in the Select Committee, when they asked for the deletion of the Finsbury lands, the petitioners said that they would leave it open to the Authority to seek town planning permission where it wished, including the Finsbury lands.
    Mr. John Hall: Speaking as another member of the Select Committee, I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) has said. It should be borne in mind that the Borough of Finsbury got all that it asked for with the exception

    241
    of one or two minor amendments. Indeed, the Select Committee gave Fins-bury all the matters of substance in deleting from the Bill any mention of Finsbury lands.
    It is certainly my understanding that what we did in deleting the mention of Finsbury lands was to place the Borough of Finsbury on all fours with all other areas, so that should the Authority wish to set up an annex for any purpose, it had to go through the normal town and country planning procedure with all the inquiries and rights to object which follow.
    We thought that if we did that, it would be unlikely that the town and country planning authorities would grant permission for an annex in the place where it was originally intended to establish it.
    Mr. John Morris: As another member of the Select Committee, I confirm what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has just said. It is also my impression that the decision of the Select Committee placed all available sites on all fours. Until the decision was arrived at by the Select Committee, it seemed that the St. Luke's site for an annex was in a preferential position; there was no need for the planning requirements to be observed or for the special inquiries to be instituted. Therefore, once the Bill was passed, the Authority could go ahead and proceed to erect the annex at St. Luke's.
    The Select Committee heard evidence on that point and we came to the conclusion that the preferential treatment which placed St. Luke's in a special position should be deleted from the Bill. The conclusion that we arrived at is that when the Authority looks for an annex—and the House came to the conclusion on Second Reading that there should be an annex—it can go back to St. Luke's if it wishes, but that it must observe the ordinary planning requirements and obtain permission. As the hon. Member for Wycombe said, having regard to the evidence, it is extremely doubtful whether the Authority could satisfy the necessary requirements for this site.
    Mr. de Freitas: As a Member of the House who was active on Second Reading and, at that stage, was closely in touch with the Bill, but who did not serve on the Select Committee, I should
    242
    like to ask whether we could not be given guidance that would help us when we deal with Clause 16. When we talk about the annex and storage, should we not at all times draw a sharp distinction between storage for bulk goods which are to be sold, and storage for containers? Are they not two completely separate points and may they not give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding unless they are sharply distinguished?
    As I understand, the points made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) are concerned largely with Clause 16. Unless we make the distinction clear before we reach that Clause, we may be going round in circles.
    Mr. Fletcher: It is important to get this right. I have been looking at precisely what was said by Mr. Gerald Gardiner, Q.C., who presented the case for the Finsbury Council. The Committee might well be reminded of what he said, for he put the matter succinctly. At page 122 of the proceedings of the Select Committee, Mr. Gardiner said that the object of Finsbury Borough in petitioning was
    "either (1) that wherever else the annex may be put, it should not be put on the Finsbury Lands;"—
    that was the first thing for which they asked; or alternatively—
    "that if the Market Authority is given power to put an annex on any site it thinks fit, the Finsbury site should not be specifically mentioned in the Bill."
    Mr. Gardiner went on to say that those two objects might be achieved in one of two ways:
    "(1) if the Committee thinks fit to make a special report to the House, if there is to be an annex, or assuming there is to be an annex, the Committee is satisfied that it ought not to be put on this site".
    I break off the quotation there to observe that the Select Committee did not adopt that alternative. It did not make a special report to the House and it did not say that the Authority ought not in any circumstances to put the annex on the Finsbury site.
    I resume the quotation from Mr. Gardiner, who said that the second alternative would be
    "by omitting from the Bill any reference to the Finsbury lands, which would leave the Market Authority with power, with the permission of the Minister"—
    I am not sure whether that means the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister

    243
    responsible for town and country planning—
    "to put the annex on any site they think fit, including the Finsbury lands."
    It was that second alternative which the Select Committee adopted.
    Mr. Soames: That is so. I think that the final outcome is now broadly understood on both sides of the Committee. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), we talk about an annex but what is in the Bill is an obligation upon the Authority to provide storage facilities. We have grown accustomed to talking of it as an annex. There are two distinct problems, the storage of cases and the storage of fruit and the like. The Authority will have to grapple with the question of how large the storage facilities will need to be. It might not prove to be all that large. I do not think that it is for us to try to specify it. We will be referring to storage facilities when we reach Clause 16.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 3 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 14.—(TRANSFER TO THE AUTHORITY OF LIABILITIES UNDER COMPANY'S PENSION SCHEMES, AND APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUSTEE AS TRUSTEE OF CERTAIN OF THOSE SCHEMES.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mellish: This is the Clause which transfers to the Authority the liabilities under certain pension schemes and on that I want an assurance from the Minister. Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to tell us, were there discussions with the trade union side about this? Has there been full agreement? Are there any doubts? Can we have an assurance that any schemes in being now will be maintained? The hon. Gentleman will see the reason for my concern. This Authority to be set up is an all-powerful body without any Parliamentary control. It is right that we should make quite sure that those who are to be affected by the activities
    244
    of the Authority, particularly those who are beneficiaries under any pension scheme, will be protected. It is about that I want to know. If we can get assurances on these things we shall be happy to pass the Clause.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I can give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. There has been consultation. There is agreement. He will not. I am sure, want me to give the details of existing schemes, but I am told that the transfer is expected to be smoothly carried out.
    There will be an annual report submitted to Parliament, and I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that that will give ample opportunity for raising all subjects such as this from time to time, which they may at present be a little worried about, on the ground that this may be the first and the last opportunity for discussing them. It certainly will not be. There will be an annual report which, I am sure, will cover not only this but other questions which hon. Members may have in mind.
    Mr. Fletcher: That is all very well, to say there have been discussions, but we have a duty to satisfy ourselves a little more about this. After all, we are going through this important Bill very rapidly. None of these matters was investigated by the Select Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has said, this Clause affects the rights of a great many people. So do some of the Clauses that we have just passed.
    Would the Minister be good enough to tell us, am I right in thinking that the effect of the Clause is to transfer to the new Authority when set up certain existing obligations of the existing company to pay pensions to certain people? I have not analysed in detail the Second Schedule which goes with the Clause, but would I be right in thinking that the Clause also relieves the existing Company of its obligations? If that is so, certain people in the market have certain rights against the existing company, and I suppose that those rights were enforceable in the same way as they would be against any commercial company.
    My experience is that it is less difficult to enforce rights against a commercial

    245
    company by due process of law than it is to enforce rights against statutory undertakers, authorities set up by Parliament. Why that should be so I am not quite sure, but experience proves that that is the case. Therefore, although the trade unions have been consulted, as my hon. Friend has suggested they should have been, we should like to know that, in so far as pension schemes have been entered into in conjunction with insurance companies—I see, for example, mentioned in the Schedule certain insurance polices of the Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd.—the insurance companies have also been consulted and that there is no risk of anyone having any existing claim against the new Authority being defeated by reason of the fact that by this Clause we are relieving the company of its obligations.
    Mr. Vane: I will try to give the hon. Member the assurance which he quite understandably seeks. The position is that the Authority steps into the shoes of the company and accepts all its obligations. I cannot comment on what the hon. Member says about having a dispute with a company as against a public authority, but, of course, a company can be wound up, and so I should not have thought that the individual would be any worse off with his contract with the Authority and—
    Mr. Fletcher: Exactly. A company can be wound up, but a public authority cannot.
    Mr. Vane: Therefore, the Authority's obligations to the individual will continue. I do not suggest that the company would have been wound up. I do not think that the position is in any way weakened by the changeover.
    The pension rights of the market staff are embodied in three pension schemes or arrangements under which certain policies have been taken out with an insurance company to secure benefits. The Bill—I am putting it simply; the Bill says it in rather more words—provides for the Authority to step into the shoes of the market company and to take over all the pension obligations and liabilities. This is the machinery to effect that, and I can assure the Committee that the rights of the employees of the company and their pension expectations are very properly assured under the arrangements provided for by this Clause.
    Mr. Mellish: With that assurance we certainly and most warmly can support the Clause.
    Mr. Vane: Thank you.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 16.—(DUTY OF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE MARKET AND STORAGE FACILITIES.)
    Mr. John Hall: I beg to move, in page 10, line 47, at the end to insert "or any other approved site".
    It is not without significance that two of my three hon. Friends who support me in this Amendment were members of the Select Committee, and I believe I am right in saying that this Amendment has the sympathy, if not the formal support of their names being put to it, of members of the Select Committee who were drawn from the Opposition benches.
    Subsection (1) of the Clause make it mandatory on the Authority
    "On and after the vesting day…to provide within the Covent Garden Area facilities"
    which existed there before. Subsection (2), on the other hand, lays on the Authority an obligation, when it has had time to consider the problems which confront it, when it has had time to settle into its new duties and to look around, to provide
    "facilities on the market lands, but they shall…take such steps as are practicable either to improve those facilities or to provide, in substitution there for, better ones on other lands within the Covent Garden Area."
    The purpose of my Amendment is to release the new Authority from the straitjacket of those words
    "within the Covent Garden Area"
    so as to leave the Authority, after due consideration and consultation with all those concerned, free to decide how it can best develop and where it can best develop the market of the future.
    We are considering a very great and very important and a world-renowned produce market, and I think that it is wrong that we should fetter the Authority in this way so as to force it to continue the establishment of this market in this particular area even though it

    247
    may decide, after mature reflection, that it can be better sited elsewhere.
    It is obvious from the Second Reading debate that many hon. Members on both sides were most alarmed about the proposal that this market should be frozen for all time in the centre and heart of a great city. I took the trouble to analyse the various speeches which were made. Altogether, there were nineteen. All nine Opposition speakers were, rather naturally, against the Bill. Five of my hon. Friends were against the Bill, and three gave it qualified support. They may be said to have damned it with faint praise. Two of my right hon. Friends gave unqualified support to the Bill—the Minister, who opened the debate, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who closed it. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is often called in to fight a difficult brief, and he did it very well, as he always does.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as reported in column 1273–74, said:
    "Over the years the market has far outgrown its first location. Today, it presents grave problems not only of marketing, but of planning traffic and fire control."
    Later, my right hon. Friend said,
    "Present conditions in and around the market are so bad that all agree that drastic reform is needed. The whole area cries out for proper planning and development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1960; Vol, 631, c. 1273–4.]
    Everyone agreed, but the Minister, nevertheless, introduced his proposals that the market should be retained in the present site, but that some of the load should be shifted from Covent Garden by establishing an annex for containers and bulk produce elsewhere. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the Select Committee removed from the Bill the site which the Minister had in mind and left the matter open.
    In listening to the evidence presented to the Select Committee it struck me that the Minister seemed not to be fully acquainted with the various traffic problems and their extent—not only those which would be involved in placing the annex in the proposed site, but the traffic problems in general. I was struck by an answer given to me by a Ministry witness, as reported on page 232 of the Minutes of Evidence, Question 2190.
    248
    My question and the answer were:
    "Was the Minister fully aware of the very serious traffic problems that might result from the St. Luke's site before he had the survey?—I could not say he was fully aware of the traffic implications in the use of any particular site."
    I quote that because it makes me wonder a little whether the figures given by the Minister on Second Reading about the general traffic conditions in and around Covent Garden were based on the same kind of information or lack of information.
    In the Second Reading debate the Minister said that the flow of market traffic is not a major factor in the flow of traffic on the roads around the market area. The survey on which the Minister relies was taken by a traffic expert in September and a figure which the Minister quoted was 3,250 vehicles going into the market during the day, a figure arrived at by taking an average over five days. On the Tuesday the number of vehicles going into the market was greater—3,858; but the point is that these figures relate to September. The traffic engineer who prepared the report said in his appendix, about the period in September over which he made his investigation:
    "It is generally felt by the merchants in the market that this is one of the quietest periods of the trading year, if not the quietest."
    It came out in evidence before the Select Committee that in April four times as much bulk produce comes into the Port of London as in September. One can, therefore, assume that the movement of traffic in and out of Covent Garden during that period is considerably greater than the figure quoted by the Minister as representing the average over a week in September, which is a much quieter period.
    The Minister prayed in aid the Runciman Committee's Report. Hon. Members on both sides will remember that that Committee recommended that Covent Garden should stay where it is, but it also recommended an extension of Brentford Market, in the west, of Stratford Market, in the east, and of Greenwich Market for the south-east, and, as one very important recommendation, the establishment of a completely new market in the north-west of London. Only after making those recommendations to extend the facilities to be provided by other markets, with the establishment of a new market on the

    249
    perimeter of London, did the Committee suggest that Covent Garden should remain, reduced in size, in the centre, to act very largely as a price-fixing centre.
    4.45 p.m.
    It is not without significance, in considering whether the Authority should be allowed to consider other sites for the establishment of Covent Garden Market, to remind the House what the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee said. I quote from page 126 of the Minutes of Evidence, starting at the last paragraph:
    "In 1958, the traffic authority, that is to say, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee Report for that year (it came out in 1959), expressly reminded the Minister of their view stated in their Report of the year before that Covent Garden Market would be best removed entirely to another site. And then they added,'…on 11th June, 1958, the Minister…announced in the House of Commons the Government's decision that the Market should not be entirely removed from its present area although he contemplated provision elsewhere for storage premises associated with the Market, coupled with increased efficiency and a reduction in size. In view of our duties in connection with London traffic, we much regret that this decision has been found necessary. Those responsible for planning the future Market, as well as those responsible for traffic conditions in the area, are now confronted with a challenge which it will require all their ingenuity to meet.'"
    This point was made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on Second Reading, and the point does not lose force by repetition. Indeed, it must be repeated, because one of the main reasons why we should consider alternative sites is the appalling traffic problem which is likely to arise if it is left there.
    What are the alternatives? It was suggested by the Minister on Second Reading that the market might be rebuilt not exactly on the present site, but possibly on the Seven Dials site immediately adjacent to the existing Covent Garden area. In my view, that would in no way improve the position, because it would still create the same kind of traffic difficulty. I am not at all sure—I have not the map before me—whether the Seven Dials area is included in the Covent Garden Market area and whether it comes within the map which is referred to in Clause 53, in which a definition of the Covent Garden Market area is given. But on the assumption that it is within that area, that is one
    250
    alternative. If I may quote from "Iolanthe",
    "Hearts just as pure and fair
    May beat in Belgrave Square
    As in the lowly air
    Of Seven Dials."
    I am not suggesting that Belgrave Square is necessarily a good alternative site.
    On Second Reading, King's Cross was suggested as a site. It was mentioned in passing by the Minister on Second Reading and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when winding up the debate, when he replied to an eloquent speech on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). As I understand, King's Cross was rather dismissed by the Ministry because in its view the British Transport Commission was not prepared to make up its mind whether it was ready to release the land for the purposes of the establishment of a market or whether it wanted the land for some other reason. I have the impression that that is the Minister's view now.
    Curiously enough, as I understand, Mr. Glover, who was one of the moving spirits behind the King's Cross idea, is still in active negotiation with the Transport Commission, which, apparently, shows itself keenly interested in the whole idea. Therefore, as far as the Transport Commission is concerned, there does not seem to be any overriding reason at the moment why King's Cross should not be considered as an alternative site.
    I have no particular bias in favour of any site. It may be that the Authority, when it has had time to settle down, may find many more suitable places. It may find that it wants to divide the market up in different ways. All I suggest is that, by accepting the Amendment, the Authority is left free to decide for itself whether and how it shall develop the market. It is not forced to develop it in Covent Garden or elsewhere.
    The Authority can decide entirely for itself, and in doing so I am sure that it would bear in mind the Abercrombie Report on the County of London Plan of as long ago as 1943, when it was said, of Covent Garden:
    "It is now a source of great congestion and delay and, with its inadequate road and rail connections its position cannot be justified today."

    251
    There can be no objection, surely, to adding these innocuous but helpful words as an Amendment to the Clause, which would leave the Authority to decide itself, against the background of its own knowledge and investigation, how it should develop this great market in the future.
    It would be wrong to put into the Bill a Clause requiring the Authority to keep the market in Covent Garden even though the Authority might come to the conclusion that that was the wrong site.
    Mr. Charles Doughty: I should like to support the Amendment It gives the Covent Garden Authority wider powers and does not seem to restrict it in any way. If this were an Amendment directing the Authority to find a site other than at Covent Garden I would not be prepared to support it, whether or not, in my view, the Authority should find another site. If the Clause goes through as it stands the Authority will be compelled by Statute, whether it likes it or not, to rebuild in Covent Garden.
    When the Authority looks for various sites—and I say that advisedly, because the annex has to be considered as well and we have heard today about some of the difficulties which will be encountered with that—it may find itself unduly restricted if it may only look for its main buildings in the Covent Garden area. It might find tremendous transport and sewerage difficulties in the Covent Garden area. It might want to look elsewhere, further out from London, for a site for the present and the future.
    We must remember that everything that is brought to Covent Garden and taken away has to be transported and that the present Covent Garden area has absolutely no transport facilities whatever. I exclude, of course, lorry transport, which can go anywhere, but by going to and from Covent Garden the lorries cause tremendous congestion in the area every morning throughout the year. The congestion is sometimes worse than at other times. There are parts of London where there are easy road and rail transport facilities and even facilities for air transport.
    I am not saying that the Authority should seek a site further away, or that
    252
    it should not. All I say is that it must be left with a free hand and must be free to decide in the light of all the pros and cons of the situation and of the question of the annex where the site for the new market should be.
    It has been said that this site will be only a price-fixing site and that sales will be by sample and not by bulk. I have strong doubts about that. It will be a price-fixing site in the sense that prices raised in Covent Garden will govern prices in other markets, but for centuries there has been trading in bulk and not in samples there and I do not believe that when the new site is provided traders can be persuaded to bring their samples and keep the bulk elsewhere. It is contrary to their training and practice over centuries. We shall find that in the new market bulk will be delivered, dealt with, and taken away after sale.
    I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment. It is permissive and it extends the Authority's powers. It does not in any way restrict the Authority, or say that it must or must not go to the Covent Garden area.
    Mr. Wise: I am happy to say that this point was not brought up in the Select Committee, otherwise we should have been unable to preserve the happy unanimity which we so strikingly showed. I cannot believe that this is a sound Amendment and I shall pray in aid the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who referred to the great difficulty and the delay which would follow if the Authority had to look for a site for the annex.
    There would be even more delay if it had to look for two sites. Although this is a permissive Amendment, and does not debar the Authority from carrying on the market where it is, the fact remains that it lays upon the Authority the obligation to look for another site and, therefore, it can lead only to delay in carrying out the object of the Bill.
    Moreover, I am not ready to believe that this market should be removed. It has been there for 300 years and enormous good will has grown around it. I know that
    "a rose,
    By another name would smell as sweet,"

    253
    but Covent Garden will not be Covent Garden if the market is built at Ponders End. It is a market which is known throughout the world. It owes some thing to its name and it is well worth the effort to keep that name. There is an objection to having the market in the middle of a great town, but if we are to have a great fruit and vegetable market it must be in the middle of the town—
    Mr. John Hall: That does not apply to Paris.
    Mr. Wise: Paris is a much smaller town than London.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) adumbrated the idea that it should be removed to King's Cross, where there would be the necessary railway facilities.
    Mr. Doughty: I never used the word "King's" or the word "Cross".
    Mr. Wise: Anyway, my hon. and learned Friend said that it should be removed to a place where there would be railway facilities, and I do not know of any other where those would be available.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: I drew attention on Second Reading and in other debates to 44 acres of goods yards which are quite inadequately used at St. Marylebone and which would make an excellent site, with road and rail facilities and everything else available.
    Mr. Wise: I was not aware that my hon. Friend had the concurrence of the British Transport Commission to the lack of use of these 44 acres, but as for King's Cross I think that it is "just not on"
    The City of London announced to the Select Committee that negotiations had been successfully concluded with the Transport Commission for the use of this site at King's Cross for the transport of slaughterhouses from Islington.
    Mr. John Hall: My hon. Friend is in confusion, rather naturally because of the confusing evidence on that subject. What the witness intended to say was that the City Corporation had concluded the arrangements for Maiden Lane. My hon. Friend will see that on page 307 of the evidence.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Wise: I can only base my statement on what the witness said. I said to the witness:
    "I understood you to say in your evidence that negotiations with British Transport over the site at King's Cross have reached a successful conclusion…"
    The answer to that was "Yes".
    Mr. John Hall: If my hon. Friend ill now turn to page 307 of the Report, he will see that the witness said that the City Corporation was interested in Maiden Lane and not in King's Cross.
    Mr. Wise: I must ask the Committee to forgive us while I look this up.
    Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is correct. The City Corporation has almost concluded arrangements with the Transport Commission to take the site at Maiden Lane for the slaughterhouse, which is departing from Islington, much to my joy. The King's Cross site was a different site from that at Maiden Lane.
    Mr. Wise: For all I know, the City Corporation may have decided to take two sites. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that the witness was a shade confused under cross-examination, but I was not examining him, I was simply asking him a simple question. It led on to the question whether the City Corporation envisaged that the depôt, if it were available, should be handed over to the Covent Garden Authority. The answer to that was "No". It is unfair to expect the Authority to have any easy access to any alternative sites.
    Mr. John Hall: I am sorry to press this point, but it should be made clear that the City Corporation has no interest whatever in King's Cross. Its interest is confined to Maiden Lane. Nothing that it has done or intends to do, as far as I am aware, is likely to affect the King's Cross proposition.
    Mr. Wise: I am not sure that my hon. Friend and I are talking about the same thing. Is not the site in Maiden Lane actually the goods site of King's Cross station, and on the tracks by the station? I do not think that there has been any proposal to move the station. But, passing from that point—which I will, if necessary, concede—the fact remains that

    255
    it would be extremely difficult for the Authority to find any other site than Covent Garden. It would also be undesirable to throw away what is, as has been said, the world-renowned good will of this market. It will not be Covent Garden if it is somewhere else. I do not believe that the traffic congestion is anything like the problem which the traffic committee said that it would be.
    Mr. Doughty: Go and see.
    Mr. Wise: My hon. Friend says "go and see," but the traffic conditions constitute a factor which we are endeavouring to alter. Out of the 30 acres for the market, between seven and 10 are to be devoted to accommodating vehicles which now stand in the roads all round, causing congestion. It is not the movement of traffic in or out of the market, but the traffic standing at the sides of the roads which causes the trouble. I do not believe that the market's daily total of 2,000 or 4,000 vehicles—which is only a tithe of the traffic using that area—is so great a factor in causing congestion, so long as those vhicles are not standing in the surrounding roads.
    It would be regrettable to impose on the Authority the obligation to look for an extra site, even though it might take the obligation lightly—which I do not think that it should. It would be better if this Committee did not force it to consider other sites, having already given it the task of looking for a variety of sites.
    Mr. Colin Turner: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) seems to have drawn a lot of red herrings across this Amendment. As I understand it, the object of the Amendment, which I support wholeheartedly, is to give the Authority, when it is set up, the opportunity, if it so desires, to look for another site. I do not agree with my hon. Friend's view on the traffic problem. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will remember that I laid great emphasis on the fact that I did not believe the Minister's figures were true. We have now been told that the figures we have been given during today's discussion are for the lightest part of the year, which justifies what I said on Second Reading.
    256
    The important aspect of this Amendment—which is the most vital Amendment of the Bill—is to give the Authority, when it is set up, the opportunity to look for an alternative site if it finds that the problem of traffic and transport in the Covent Garden area is almost impossible to solve. It is only right that the House should take that step. Perhaps it will be difficult to find an alternative site—no one denies that—but it is most important that the Authority should have the opportunity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, because many of us feel that it is vital to the Bill.
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) has suggested that if this Amendment, which is an interesting one, were accepted, there would be an obligation on the Authority to look for an alternative site. I cannot see any such obligation.
    Mr. Wise: If there is no obligation, the Amendment does not mean anything.
    Mr. Morris: I will make my speech. Perhaps the hon. Member may make another one later. There is no obligation involved. It would merely be a permissive power. There would be no obligation on the Authority to delay doing something about the market area while going all over London or in the country to look for a site. It would merely give it power to look if it wished so to do. The hon. Member for Rugby is reading too much into the Amendment if he suggests that it is imposing an obligation on the Authority to look for another site, coupling with that obligation a resulting delay before anything is done about the market. We should look at the Amendment as it is. If it means other than what I have suggested, then I am willing to be corrected.
    I agree that this problem did not assert itself before the Select Committee, and in that respect we were fortunate that it did not do so. Therefore, that aspect was not examined by the Select Committee. Indeed, it was not possible for us to look into the question of an alternative site at King's Cross. As I understand the Clause, the Authority is confined to the Covent Garden area.
    All of us will agree, I think, that it is desirable to have some kind of market

    257
    at Covent Garden which will give a lead to all parts of the country and suggest the price-fixing mechanism. The suggestion was made by the Minister on Second Reading that if this Bill went through it would be possible even for the market to expand. That was part of his original Press statement. It would be a deplorable result of this Bill if that were to happen. It would be far more advantageous to the market and to London, with all its traffic problems, if the market contracted. But that is quite different from going away from Covent Garden. There should be a market there, perhaps for price fixing mechanism, but nothing more.
    On Second Reading, the Government implied that they were adopting the Runciman recommendations by introducing this Bill. They were doing nothing of the kind. They were accepting half the proposals of the Runciman Committee and praying them in aid for their action. We heard evidence before the Select Committee of the transport chaos in London. The Report of the Commissioner of the Police was quoted several times on Second Reading. If the hon. Member for Rugby is not aware that on Second Reading the attention of everyone was drawn to traffic chaos in London, he has now been corrected by another hon. Member. I am sure he did not intend to give a wrong impression to the Committee.
    Everyone agrees that there is considerable unnecessary chaos in this area at present. If the Bill goes through, I am sure that large numbers of stationary vehicles will be taken off the streets and will go into the building provided in the market. But I am not completely satisfied. If the Government have such confidence in Covent Garden Market area as being the best possible site for a market, why should they resist this Amendment? It is merely a permissive Amendment. It gives the chance to the Authority to say that it wishes to look for another site. The Authority would not be obliged to do so. If there is confidence that, having given these powers to the Authority, it will inevitably come to the conclusion that this is the one and only site it can use, there is no reason for the Government to resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Wise: I am a little confused about this. We have heard from all the sup-
    258
    porters of the Amendment how permissive it is and how it lays no sort of obligation on the Authority to do anything. Do not supporters of the Amendment accept that if it were carried there would be an obligation on the Authority to do something about looking for another site? If they do not expect the Authority to do anything, why do they proceed with the Amendment?
    Mr. John Hall: As the mover of the Amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to answer. The intention is that it should be permissive for the Authority, if on consideration it thinks it best to go elsewhere from Covent Garden, to be able to do so. As the Bill stands, although the Authority may think it better to go to another site, it cannot do anything but establish the market in the Covent Garden area.
    Mr. Morris: I think that reply meets the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby. I was not a sponsor of the Amendment, but that was the impression conveyed to me by the proposer and by my reading of it. It would be purely permissive. The Authority could look for another site if it wished to do so, but it would not be compelled to do so. That is the nub of the Amendment. If the Government have such confidence in this area as the future place in which to invest a very large amount of money for ever, why should they seek to resist—if they do resist—the Amendment?
    5.15 p.m.
    Sir W. Wakefield: I wish to support the Amendment. I cannot see what possible objection there can be to giving something which is permissive. Some powerful arguments have been advanced as to why this permission should be included in the Bill. It may be that the Covent Garden Authority when it is set up will find some exceedingly suitable site for an annex. It may be that in course of time that annex could be developed more ably as a Covent Garden Market centre than in the Covent Garden area itself.
    I cannot see why permissive power should not be included in the Bill. Quite apart from the King's Cross site, there are sites which I have mentioned from time to time. There is the large area in St. Marylebone and the large area at Wembley which might be useful. There

    259
    are large areas owned by the British Transport Commission which undoubtedly will become redundant in years to come. As the modernisation plan of the Commission takes place, goods vehicles will be much speedier and smaller numbers of goods vehicles will be required. Therefore, large goods areas will no longer be needed to handle the traffic. It may mean that in the next decade very suitable and convenient areas may be provided with rail, and perhaps road, facilities.
    We should look very foolish if the Covent Garden Authority, during the course of its duties, found it was unable to develop Covent Garden activities elsewhere because there was no permissive provision in the Bill. For the reasons which have been advanced, I suggest that this opportunity should be given. All along, Westminster City Council has been greatly concerned at traffic congestion in its area. There have been petitions and representations about that congestion. It may be that if we removed the congestion caused by standing vehicles congestion would not be so great. There would still be a substantial number of vehicles coming to the centre of the city and going out again. That could be avoided if the market were established elsewhere.
    Anything which can be done to remove congestion from the centre of London—which in the years to come is likely to increase rather than to decrease—must be an advantage. Therefore, if it is possible for the Covent Garden Authority to have permission, should it think it wise, to move elsewhere, that might be of greater benefit in reducing traffic congestion. For these and other reasons which have been advanced, I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
    Mr. A. Evans: It appears that on the Government benches there is a belated doubt as to whether Covent Garden Market would be best left in its present position. Now, on Committee stage, a large number of Government supporters have come round to the view that perhaps, after all, it would be better if the market did not remain where it is. At long last, in Committee, it is thought that perhaps it was a mistake for the
    260
    Government to decide that Covent Garden Market should remain in its present area.
    When this matter was discussed on Second Reading, from this side of the House we advocated what has long been our policy, that the market should be moved to another site. Hon. Members opposite have now seen the wisdom of our policy and are wondering whether it is wise to leave the market where it is. They are seeking permission for the Authority to put it elsewhere if the Authority so desires.
    Mr. John Hall: If the hon. Member reads the Second Reading debate, he will see that a number of my hon. Friends held that view before.
    Mr. Evans: That may be so, but now we have a concerted effort on the Government benches to move contrary to the express purpose of the Government on Second Reading. This seems to be rather unfair to the House and the Minister to put forward this project at this stage. It seems to me that, properly, it should have been brought up on Second Reading so that the matter could be considered at that stage. Now that the Minister and the Government have committed themselves in principle to Covent Garden Market not remaining where it now is, it is rather late for hon. Members to seek to give the Authority permission to find another site.
    I suppose that this Amendment is in order, although it seems to be difficult to fit it in quite happily into the Long Title of the Bill.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Godfrey Nicholson): The Amendment would not have been selected if it had not been in order. I would deprecate any repetition of the Second Reading debate upon it. It is very difficult to keep within the rules but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not indulge in another Second Reading speech.
    Mr. Evans: I agree on the first point, Sir Godfrey, that it is in order. Obviously, it must be in order, having been selected. I have no intention of remaking the speech I made on Second Reading, but I am, I hope, speaking to the Amendment. I am saying that this Amendment and the idea behind it should more appropriately have been put before the

    261
    House on Second Reading. The Amendment is in order, but there is a problem with the Long Title, as it is quite clear that the intention of the Government is that Covent Garden Market should be refashioned and modernised on its present site. Therefore, it seems to me that the Amendment is quite contrary to the Bill as it comes to us from the Select Committee and as we have it before us on Committee stage.
    Mr. Soames: I should like first to refer to what has been said about some remarks I made during my Second Reading speech. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said that I prayed in aid the Runciman Committee, inferring that that Committee had recommended that Covent Garden Market should remain as it is and where it is, and that what we were doing was following the advice of the Runciman Committee. I would refer my hon. Friend to my Second Reading speech, which put beyond doubt what the situation actually is. I said:
    "The Runciman Committee came to the conclusion that the national central Market should stay where it is, at Covent Garden, but be reduced in size and scope. It recommended that this should be done by diverting some of Covent Garden's trade with London retailers to a completely new market and to Brentford and Stratford Markets, which should be expanded for the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1281.]
    Mr. John Hall: I do not think that what my right hon. Friend said then is contrary to what I have said to him. I drew attention to that very fact, though perhaps I put the stresses in slightly different places. I think I have quoted him accurately.
    Mr. Soames: I gathered that my hon. Friend had either misunderstood what I said or thought that I had in some way endeavoured to mislead the House in what he called "praying in aid" the Runciman Report in suggesting that the new Covent Garden Market should remain where it is. In fact, what I put to the House on Second Reading was in line with the Runciman Committee's recommendations.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner), said that the figures I had given him had been shown not to be correct figures. I do not quite know what makes him
    262
    think so. The figures I gave were from a census ordered from and carried out by a reputable firm used to carrying out such a census, which told us exactly how many vehicles were passing different points, how many were stationary and for how long, in the same way as anybody who wants to can have a census taken.
    Mr. Turner: If my hon. Friend will remember, at an earlier stage it was pointed out that the census was taken at a time of the lowest peak of traffic during the whole year, and that was the very point I made. I did not accuse my right hon. Friend of giving wrong figures. These figures were perfectly correct at the time, but I say the time was badly chosen.
    Mr. Soames: On the point of the lowest peak of traffic, we had this done in September, because it so happened that that was when we decided to have it done, not because we thought it was either the highest or the lowest peak of traffic. I assure my hon. Friend of that. As for the traffic peak, it may well be that there is four times as much imported produce going into Covent Garden in April as in September, and what is equally shown is that there are several times as much home-grown produce going through the market in September as there is in April. I suppose that to be absolutely accurate, one should have taken the census at various times of the year, but there is certainly much more home-grown produce traffic in September than in April, and certainly more imported produce going in the market during April than September.
    Mr. John Hall: Irrespective of whether it is home-produced or imported produce that goes through the market at that particular time, the interesting point is that the traffic engineer's own comment, in the report to the Minister, said:
    "It is generally felt by traders in the Market that it is one of the quietest periods of the trading year, if not actually the quietest, irrespective of where the produce comes from."
    Mr. Soames: I dare say that the number of lorries coming and going might have been greater if the census had been taken a month or two earlier, or even a month or two later, but I think the fact is broadly appreciated by every one who has studied the problem that the traffic problem within Covent Garden Market is not nearly so

    263
    much that of the number of lorries passing through, but the length of time which they have to spend under present conditions waiting to unload or load and then getting out again after having been unloaded or loaded.
    Indeed, I think I would accept the broad thesis of what lies behind the Amendment. It is this. Can we be sure that Covent Garden is the best place for this market? Would it not be better to leave it to the Authority to decide in the fullness of time, after considering it and with more care, where it should be? Now, the Government could have brought in, had they so desired, a Bill which left it completely open. It could have been done. It would have been a difficult Bill from the hybrid point of view, because people would not have known to what extent they would be affected, whether representations could be made and the like, but it could have been done. To this extent, the Bill now lays down that the annex can be elsewhere than at Finsbury. This has been amended by the Select Committee, and it is now up to the Authority to decide where the annex should go.
    But where the Covent Garden Market is concerned, this is a big decision to take, a much bigger decision than that on where the annex is to be. Where is to be placed a central market which trades in millions of pounds worth of goods? Where should it be placed? Should it be where it has been for a long time in Covent Garden, or should it be moved outside? It was the Government's view that if we were to have it put outside, or let the Authority put it somewhere away from its present situation, we should have had to have given the Authority powers far beyond what the Authority is receiving in this Bill, because there was, to put it no higher than that, a risk that a number of the people now trading in Covent Garden, if they had to "upsticks" and go elsewhere, might have chosen to go across the river to the Borough Market, or to Spitalfields or elsewhere, and so created probably worse conditions of traffic congestion in those markets. We had to decide one way or the other.
    5.30 p.m.
    We either give the Authority far-reaching powers to control all markets and marketing arrangements throughout
    264
    London, or we have to stipulate where the market is to be. If we do not give the Authority those powers, then we have to say that the market must be in or around that part of an area to which a large proportion of the tenants attach the greatest importance.
    Furthermore, the Government felt, and I think that there is a measure of support for this in the Committee, that whether the market should be in Covent Garden or some other place is quite a big decision to take, and that it is the Government's duty to take it. The decision as to where the market is to be sited is not one to be left to an authority that has not yet been set up. It will be the Authority's job to run the market. If this Amendment were accepted, the House of Commons would be left with no power whatsoever to say where—in what part of the country, or inside or outside London—this most important market should be placed.
    As I have said, the Government felt it their duty to stipulate where the market should be, and there are always arguments for and against any particular place named. I suppose that the easiest way out would be to do nothing and just let things go on, but the Government's view was that we should come to grips with the matter and that it was the Government's duty to stipulate where the market should be. It was decided that the market should remain at Covent Garden. I am sure that had we chosen any other place there would also have been arguments for and against that proposal.
    My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) said that there are certain areas of land which in some years' time will not be needed. Whenever a Bill of this kind is going through Parliament, one can always call such things as that in aid and say that the time is not far distant when new techniques will emerge which will mean that this and that will be available that are not available now. Nevertheless, from time to time a decision has to be taken—the chopper has to come down.
    The Government have taken the view that the best arrangement is for the market to be rebuilt in its present area. I can put at rest the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe by saying that the Seven Dials area is within

    265
    the area in which the building of a new market is permitted. As I have said, the effect of this Amendment would be to take away from the House the right to decide where the market shall be.
    But I must also warn the Committee that if this Amendment were carried there is no doubt that the scope of the Bill would be enlarged. At the moment, the Bill limits the building of the new market to the Covent Garden area. That has been published, and all the petition procedure has been gone through with that in mind. There is no doubt that acceptance of this Amendment would enlarge the scope of the Bill, because we would be extending the places in which the market could be rebuilt to an unspecified number of sites. Although it is not for me to judge what would happen in another place, I think it virtually certain that the ruling there would be that Standing Orders had not been complied with, and, for that reason, the acceptance of this Amendment would be the end of the Bill.
    I still believe it right—I have no qualms about it—that to rebuild within this area is the best arrangement. There are, of course, arguments for and against it, just as there would be arguments for and against siting it elsewhere. We believe it right that this Bill should tie the Authority to rebuilding within the present area. We do not think that the Authority should be able to do this work elsewhere except with the express sanction of Parliament.
    If, as a result of their inquiries and of representations made to them the Authority thought that it would be better to have the market elsewhere, how could that be brought about? It could not be done under this Bill, but what the Authority could do would be to tell the Government of the day, "We have been into this very carefully. This is the particular site we want. It is, in our view, a better site than the Covent Garden site. From every point of view, we think that it will be a more satisfactory site."
    The Authority could suggest that to the Government. That would be the second phase of the operation—quite some time ahead—and that suggestion would be given weighty consideration. It would involve legislation. It would not necessarily need a very long Bill, but it would involve legislation. I believe that to be only right, because it is
    266
    Parliament that should decide whether this market, which plays such a great part in our life, should be where it is now proposed to have it or elsewhere.
    I appreciate the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, who made a forceful speech. It is very understandable that one should not wish to take such a big decision until all factors have been considered, but it is the duty of the House, by means of this Bill, to say where the market should be. But I can give the assurance that should the market Authority later say, "We think that you have made a mistake—this would be a much better site" that view would be given the Government's full consideration—
    Mr. Morris: Before the Minister sits down, can he enlighten us on one thing? He said that if this Amendment were accepted it would be the end of the Bill in another place because Standing Orders had not been complied with. That is a rather important statement on which I should like him to enlighten us.
    Mr. Soames: I do not think that I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman much more than I have done. I have said that it is not for me to judge what would happen in another place. Nevertheless, as Minister in charge of the Bill, it is my duty to point out the risks the Committee would be running were it to accept this Amendment. In my view, the Amendment would extend the scope of the Bill. That being so, as it is a hybrid Bill it would run the risk of being brought to an end.
    Mr. Morris: But would not the same argument stand in regard to the annex proposal? That has been broadened as a result of the findings of the Select Committee, in that while the Finsbury site has been specifically deleted there now remains a general power for the Authority to look for an annex anywhere. As to the hybrid Bill proposals, there has not been any opportunity for people to make representations about any other site. I should have thought the same argument would apply to both, but I would be grateful for enlightenment.
    Mr. Soames: The difference is that it is specified in Clause 16 (2) that the Authority shall provide facilities on the

    267
    market lands but shall, as soon as practicable, take steps either to improve them or to provide
    "in substitution therefor, better ones on other lands within the Covent Garden area".
    The Amendment would extend this. Subsection (3) of the same Clause in the original Bill said
    "…the Authority…shall not, without the sanction of the Minister, provide them elsewhere outside that Area than on the Finsbury lands"
    In other words, it was not mandatory to provide them on the Finsbury lands, but there was power to go elsewhere by means of appealing to the Minister.
    Mr. Mellish: We can be certain that we shall not have heard the last of Covent Garden Market when the Bill becomes law, and I suppose that at some time someone will have to introduce legislation to cover all the markets in London, including Billingsgate and Smithfield, because of the traffic problems.
    I recognise that the arguments about traffic are basically sound and no one can turn his back on them. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is to be congratulated on the way in which he put his point of view. His theory was rightly and properly expressed on Second Reading, but now that the Bill has returned to the Committee, after having been considered by a Select Committee, we are faced with the fact that it is a Bill to deal with the development of ten acres of land in Covent Garden over a period of about seven years, its purpose being to deal with the produce which goes in and out of London every day. There are to be traffic management committees and all the other paraphernalia associated with the site. It cannot be suddenly decided, that decision having been made, that the market is now to be built somewhere else. It would have been much better and more logical, especially after what my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) said on Second Reading, if the Bill had then been defeated.
    Apart from the farmers and the producers and the middlemen and those who take the produce in and out of London, there are several thousand people who work at Covent Garden. They would be the first to agree that the planning of London is the first priority and that their
    268
    interests must take second place. But when we discuss traffic congestion do not let us assume that Covent Garden is responsible for all London's traffic problems. If Covent Garden were closed down tonight, traffic conditions in London would still be chaotic. I have often heard the Minister of Transport talking about his gimmicks with parking meters and so on in his efforts to solve the problem, but someone some day will have to take some drastic measures, even possibly to the extent of saying that no private motorist should stop anywhere in the centre of London but should drive straight through, and that might include Covent Garden as well. We might be faced with that eventually, but at the moment we are concerned not with the future but with the Bill.
    I appeal to the hon. Member for Wycombe not to press the Amendment to a Division, because that will destroy the original intention which was to make the market arrangements workable and the traffic committee one of which we could be proud. If I thought that we would never again get the chance to talk about Covent Garden, I would support the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that we will hear much about this and other markets in London in the future.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Hall: I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind the speeches of the Minister and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). The hon. Member said that he would support me if he thought that this would be the last that he would hear of Covent Garden. The hon. Member is extremely optimistic if he thinks that anyone will come forward with another Bill suggesting that Covent Garden be built elsewhere if, in the fulness of time, it is found that it should not have been retained where it is now.
    Mr. Mellish: The time may come, in the next ten or fifteen years, when a great deal of London will have to be entirely rebuilt and when we may not have to confine ourselves to Covent Garden but rebuild the entire dock industry, for instance, at a cost of millions of £s.
    Mr. Hall: That may be, but at the moment we are discussing Covent Garden and we have to confine ourselves to it.

    269
    It is absurd that we should spend £20 million on an authority to re-establish the market in the centre of London only to find in ten or fifteen years that we would have to have another Bill establishing the market somewhere else. The Minister seems to be perturbed lest by this, to me, innocuous Amendment some power is taken from the House and the Authority decides on its own responsibility to put the market other than in the Covent Garden area. I point out to my right hon. Friend—I have worded it rather carefully—that the Amendment says:
    "or any other approved site".
    so that the Minister himself would have to approve the authority's action.
    If he studies Clauses 17 and 18, he will see that a good deal of power has been given to the Authority outside the control of the House. In Clause 17 the Authority is required to ensure that the area of Covent Garden is reduced so
    "as not to exceed ten acres at the expiration of the period of seven years…"
    although the Minister retains to himself the right to lay an Order before the House to vary that period. Under Clause 18 (2) the Authority has the widest powers, akin to that of a nationalised industry, which place it outside the control of the House.
    Earlier on, the Minister himself pointed out that we were not entitled to ask Questions about the day-to-day working of the Authority any more than we are about any other nationalised industry. I find it hard to accept the argument that the fact that the Authority might decide to fix upon a site other than within the Covent Garden area is something to be deplored because that would place the Authority outside the control of the House. It would still be within the control of the Minister and, if he felt it better, we could make the procedure subject to an affirmative Resolution. I have heard nothing from either Front Bench speaker to persuade me to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. A. Evans: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out "outside" and to insert "inside".
    I am sure that the Minister will feel happier about this Amendment than he
    270
    did about the last one. He may be able to accept it because, unlike the last one, it is designed to keep the activities of the market within the area shown on the map.
    Under Clause 16, certain duties and powers will be laid on the Authority. Under subsection (1), the new Authority will be required to improve the existing facilities and arrangements in Covent Garden. We wish the Authority well in that. Whatever view we take about any part of the Bill, and however much we might disagree about the basic concept behind it, now that the Bill has reached this stage I am sure that we all agree that there is much scope for the new Authority to clear up some of the chaos which exists at present in Covent Garden and to eliminate as far as it can much of the unnecessary traffic in the market.
    Subsection (3) lays on the Authority the duty to provide, as soon as practicable, adequate facilities for storage, and it specifies that these storage facilities shall be provided as far as practicable outside the Covent Garden area. It is on that point that I invite the Minister to consider the Amendment. We think that the Authorty would be well advised to provide these facilities within the area laid down as the Covent Garden area. It would be a mistake if the Authority unnecessarily spread itself outside the designated area.
    It will be many years before Covent Garden functions merely as a gigantic showroom for samples of fruit and vegetables. For many years it will have to continue under the present arrangements, and only gradually will the Authority be able to eliminate many of the activities which are at present carried on in the market.
    For many years it will be necessary to provide storage facilities within the Covent Garden area for many commodities. I am not referring to commodities such as potatoes, vegetables, oranges and apples in bulk. Those commodities can be kept at the docks or at the annex, if and when one is found. For some time it will be necessary for the Authority to provide facilities for the storage of perishable fruit, exotic flowers, and so on. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is sensible to ask the Authority to provide facilities for the storage of the more exotic produce within the area

    271
    of the market. We do not wish to encourage sprawl. We want storage facilities to be provided within the area laid down on the map.
    Whether the Authority provides storage facilities inside or outside the area depends on the Authority's judgment as to the practicability of providing such facilities. If the Amendment were accepted, it would encourage the new Authority to keep its arrangements tidy and condensed. It would encourage the economic use of the space available within the market, and at the same time it would prevent the Authority from providing storage facilities outside the market that even if it thought that that was the practical thing to do.
    I hope that the Minister will realise that the Amendment will not make any considerable difference to the duty which the Bill seeks to lay on the Authority. It will merely act as a guide to the Authority in the provision of storage facilities. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. de Freitas: In an earlier discussion I referred to the confusion in people's minds between the provision of facilities in the annex for the storage of produce intended to be dealt with in bulk, and the provision of facilities for the storage of containers. I hope that the Minister will cover those two points when dealing with the Amendment.
    The arguments for having space for the storage of horticultural produce to be dealt with in bulk are different from those for having facilities for the storage of containers. I am concerned about the storage containers if they are to be provided outside the area of Covent Garden. We come back to the point about the shuttle service of lorries which would obviously increase expense. We should examine what is done in foreign markets—

    ROYAL ASSENT
    6.0 p.m.
    Whereupon The GENTLEMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
    The House went:—and, having returned;
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

    1. White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1961.

    2. National Health Service Act, 1961.

    3. Mersey Tunnel Act, 1961.

    4. Allhallows Staining Churchyard Act, 1961.

    5. Rio Tinto Rhodesian Mining Limited Act, 1961.

    6. Shell Brazil Act, 1961.

    7. Winchester Cathedral Close Act, 1961.

    8. Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance Act, 1961.

    9. Great Northern London Cemetery Company Act, 1961.

    10. Lancashire Quarter Sessions Act, 1961.

  COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
  Recommitted.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]
  Question again proposed, That "outside" stand part of the Clause.
  Mr. de Freitas: I was at the point of saying that this Amendment is designed to delete the word "outside" and to substitute the word "inside". I had sought to distinguish between the bulk storage facilities required for goods to be sold, and the storage facilities required for empty containers.
  Not only is it desirable that this storage space should be inside Covent Garden, but it should also be remembered that there would be a great increase in costs if lorries had to move from one place to another, as they would have to do, if the containers were stored outside the area. The experience of foreign markets is that storage facilities for containers should, as far as possible, be inside a market.
  No technical difficulties arise out of doing this because this is a diminishing

  273
  problem. I have been able to get some figures on this subject which show that in the last four years the number of returnable wooden boxes has declined by 50 per cent. in the Covent Garden area, and inevitably this trend will continue. Not only do buyers prefer non-returnable boxes—because they are far less trouble, as is the case with canned beer, the sale of which is expanding because the cans can be disposed of, while bottles must be returned—but the growers are willing to meet the demands of the buyers.
  Further, non-returnable cases will become cheaper, compared with their returnable wooden counterparts, as the packaging industry develops and as cartons and laminated wooden containers, which are extremely light, become cheaper. In the Covent Garden area twelve large companies announced during the past year that they would no longer use wooden returnable containers.
  For the reasons I have advanced, I hope that the Minister will distinguish between storage for one purpose and storage for the other.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Soames: I must first of all answer the points that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) who urged me to differentiate on the one hand between the storage of empty boxes used for home produce, and the storage of imported produce in bulk on the other. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not laying down or imposing too rigidly on the Authority what it should do with one, as opposed to the other.
  We are saying that the Authority should provide storage facilities, so far as is practicable, outside the area. We have also pointed out that empty containers represent a fire risk to the Covent Garden area and should, as far as practicable, be stored outside, along with bulk produce. But we have not differentiated between the two. I agree that the trend is away from returnable boxes and towards the non-returnable types and that more and more firms are coming round to that point of view.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln gave some figures. I should like to give some more. Two years ago the floor space in the Covent Garden area occupied by
  274
  empty boxes was 8½ acres. In the last two years that has fallen by 25 per cent. and it is still going down. But the space occupied by empty containers is still quite formidable, and it also represents a considerable fire risk.
  Although I agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln that the trend is away from returnable containers, and that the need to store containers in any quantity will not be as great in three or four years' time as it is to day, it is nevertheless necessary to realise the considerable fire risk, about which the L.C.C. has been very concerned.
  We must grapple with this problem and, at the same time, we want to ease the pressure in the Covent Garden area. The figure of 8½ acres of floor space for the storage of containers show that there is a considerable waste of important space in the centre of London. The storage of containers still creates a problem which will be with us for a good while to come, and it is better that they should be stored outside, rather than inside.
  This brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans). He seeks by his Amendment to substitute the word "inside" for the word "outside"—in other words, to ensure that what storage is possible should be done inside. We say that, "so far as practicable", it should be done outside. In our view, the hon. Gentleman's approach runs counter to what we are aiming at here. We are trying to relieve pressure on Covent Garden. We see the need to keep the market there. We should like it to become much more a market dealing in samples, if than can be done, so that the amount of ground covered may be smaller and so that fewer vehicles will have to go into the area. So far as possible, we wish to decrease the pressure on the Covent Garden area.
  It would completely change the whole trend and gist of our thoughts and intentions if we were to accept the Amendment and to impose on the Authority the obligation to keep as much of its storage as it could within the Covent Garden area. The Amendment represents a fundamentally different approach, and I must tell the Committee that I cannot recommend it.
  The extent to which storage is made available will, of course, be something

  275
  which it would be wise to leave to the Authority to decide when it looks to the future and takes all the advice that it can. It is not something which we should lay down. Nevertheless, I think it is right in principle that the storage facilities we are considering here should be outside the area. We have not forced the Authority to go outside the area. There is the saving expression "so far as practicable" which, I think, protects the Authority from being forced to go outside for all such purposes. However, the inference is there that the object of the Clause is that, when the Authority establishes its storage facilities, it should in doing so relieve pressure so far as possible within the market precincts and the Covent Garden area.
  I hope that the hon. Member will, on reflection, be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. A. Evans: I follow the Minister's line of thought, and, substantially, I agree with him. We wish, so far as practicable, to take away bulk produce from Covent Garden. I accept that approach to the matter. At the same time, the Authority, while aiming at taking bulk produce out of Covent Garden so far as practicable, will have to provide storage facilities for a great range of different items of produce and for some containers for a long time to come. I am sure that the market tradesmen, the dealers and the buyers, will expect the Authority to provide adequate storage facilities for certain items of produce which may come in and go out quite quickly—perishable or valuable items which normally are not in large bulk.
  In order to encourage the Authority to give an adequate service in the Market while that service is required there, we should leave the Authority with the choice, encouraging it to keep inside those things which have to be kept inside and, of course, all the time leaving it free to use its own judgment in doing it so far as practicable.
  However, I can see the Minister's point and, basically, I think that he may be right. If the Amendment were accepted and the word "inside" were inserted, the Authority might, perhaps, take that as meaning that it should do very little in the way of shifting bulk
  276
  produce outside. In the light of the Minister's explanation, I think that my hon. Friends will agree that the sensible course is for me to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, at the end to insert:
  "but not in any circumstances within the Metropolitan Borough of Islington".
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be wise to consider with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 19, page 14, line 16, at the end to insert:
  Provided that this Act shall not confer on the Minister or on the authority any powers of compulsory acquisition of land in the Metropolitan Borough of Islington.
  Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Mr. Thomas, I think that would be very convenient because the two Amendments hang together.
  As the Committee will appreciate, these two Amendments have been put down because a matter of vital concern to the inhabitants of the Borough of Islington is raised by them. It is necessary to say that and to tell the Committee a little of the history of the matter, for this reason. For some years, there was a risk that Covent Garden Market, or at any rate part of it, that is, that part with which we are now dealing—sometimes referred to as the annex—might be moved to Islington to the site or part of the site owned and occupied by the City Corporation for nearly a hundred years used as a cattle market. It was subsequently used as a pedlars' market. The Committee may be surprised to learn that the site covers an area of about 43 acres in the heart of London. Approximately half of it has remained derelict since the end of the war, the other half being used for abattoirs and allied purposes.
  For a long time, it has been the hope and desire of the people of Islington that the whole of that site should be acquired from the City Corporation and used for social purposes requiring very urgent attention in Islington, partly for housing, partly for schools and partly for open

  277
  space. Recently, the planning officer of the London County Council said:
  "Islington is the second lowest deficiency area of London for open space. Islington is short of 400 acres of open space …. The potential changes which can take place in Islington concern over 48 acres of a most blighted part of London, or rather a most disgraceful part of London under modern requirements".
  He added:
  "The housing position is so severe that in a comprehensive piece of planning here over 1,650 people can be rehoused".
  He was opposing any suggestion that any part of this area should be used for any purpose connected with Covent Garden requirements.
  This matter was the subject of considerable controversy on a Bill debated in the House two years ago. I shall refer to that in a moment, but I feel it necessary to introduce the matter at this stage because Clause 16 has been amended by the Select Committee. When the Bill came before us on Second Reading, certain words which are now omitted appeared at the end of subsection (3). After the words "Covent Garden Area", the subsection then read as follows:
  "but they"
  that is to say, the Authority—
  "shall not, without the sanction of the Minister, provide them"—
  that is to say, the facilities—
  "elsewhere outside that Area than on the Finsbury lands".
  6.30 p.m.
  As long as those words were in the Bill, any risk that part of the Covent Garden Market operations might be transferred to any part of Islington was nil. I hope that there is no such risk, but I move the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will be able to give the people of Islington, who are very concerned about the matter, the assurance which they seek.
  It is necessary to refer to the history of the matter for this reason. I could quite understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) in seeking the deletion from the Bill of any specific reference to the Finsbury lands, but my hon. Friend gave evidence before the Select Committee urging, quite properly, why he and the people of Finsbury thought that the Finsbury lands should not be specifically designated. What disturbed
  278
  me was part of my hon. Friend's evidence which appears on page 148 of the Report of the Select Committee. He was asked to give reasons why the Finsbury lands should be deleted and whether he thought that any better site than the Finsbury lands was available for the annex. I quote from page 148 of the Select Committee's Report. My hon. Friend was asked:
  "Can I get this agreement from you, Alderman Cliffe, that it is going to be very difficult for anybody to find the ideal site?"
  My hon. Friend's answer was:
  "I think it is going to be impossible in Central London, but I think that there are other places considerably better than the one now being proposed.
  Then came the following questions and answers:
  "Q. Which do you suggest are better? Well, I think—
  Q. The Barking one you have referred to?"
  My hon. Friend replied:
  "Caledonian Market, for example."
  My hon. Friend gave reasons why he considered Caledonian Market the appropriate site for the annex.
  Mr. Mellish: Shame.
  Mr. Fletcher: I must say, I was surprised to read that. Evidence given before a Select Committee obviously does not receive as much publicity as do proceedings in the House of Commons. It is therefore desired by my constituents and by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) that we should try to get the position concerning Islington clear. The best way to do that would be to add words to the Bill expressly denying to the Authority the right in any circumstances to acquire land in Islington—by that, of course, I mean the Caledonian Market site—for the purposes of the annex.
  In view of the chequered history of the negotiations over the last few years, I do not particularly want to be put off by certain assurances that it is not the present intention, either of the Authority or of the City Corporation, to make the Caledonian Market site available for the annex. I appreciate that it has been stated—I want to quote it to have it on the record—that at the moment it is not intended to use the Caledonian Market site.

  279
  On two occasions, however, the City Corporation promoted Bills in the House of Commons, in the 1957–58 and 1958–59 Sessions, to enable the Corporation, among other things, to have statutory power to use the Caledonian Market site for the storage of empty containers and of fruit and vegetables in bulk to be sold by sample. Those Bills had a curious history. The first was dropped because of certain opposition to it. The second Bill, in the 1958–59 Session, contained in Clause 9 a request that Parliament should give the City Corporation powers to use the Caledonian Market for these purposes, unlimited in time according to the content of the Bill when deposited. That Bill was opposed by the London County Council and by the Islington Borough Council.
  The then Minister of Agriculture had certain observations to make about it. He took the view that it was desirable that the Caledonian Market, belonging to the City Corporation, should be used temporarily for the purpose of storage of containers. Further negotiations followed and the then Minister subsequently changed his mind. Despite the opposition of the London County Council, the Minister suggested to the City Corporation that it should use part of the Caledonian Market area not only for the storage of containers but also for the storage of fruit and vegetables to be sold in bulk.
  It was said by the Minister at that time that it was intended merely as a temporary provision. It was opposed by the traders on the ground that it would have been inconvenient for them to move temporarily to the Caledonian Market. They therefore brought pressure to bear with a view to the Caledonian Market site at Islington being used, not temporarily, but permanently as the annex.
  Those propositions were vehemently contested in the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West and by myself, as well as by others. Although considerable pressure was brought by the London County Council at that time because the council thought that some temporary accommodation in Islington was desired, eventually my hon. Friends and I withdrew our opposition to parts of the City
  280
  Corporation's Bill in a compromise which is now contained in the City Corporation Act and which provides that, in so far as the City Corporation has power under its 1959 Act to provide market storage facilities on any part of the lands in the Borough of Islington forming part of the Metropolitan Cattle Market, those powers shall cease on the expiration of four years from the passing of the Act. That was the agreement reached in 1959, that if there was to be any use of the Caledonian Market site for temporary storage facilities, it should be deliberately confined to the period of four years from 1959, two years of which have already expired.
  Subsequently the Minister found the Finsbury site and designated it as the annex in the Bill. There may well be objections to this site, but as long as it was designated the people of Islington had no more worries. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) well knows the requirements of the people of London and he knows that Islington is starved of housing accommodation and open space, and that these 43 acres are ripe for development.
  Subsequently, there was an application by the City Corporation for permission to develop part of the site, and there was an inquiry by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The City Corporation's application was turned down, and in his report the Inspector said that the land in this area was needed for the recreational, educational and residential needs of the district. He said that this is one of the largest areas of land, disused or not used to capacity in Islington, and indeed in the inner area of London, and that it affords a rare opportunity for large-scale comprehensive development. In the interests not only of Islington but of London it would be a tragedy if it were thought that there was any possibility of this valuable site of 43 acres in the middle of London not being used for comprehensive redevelopment for social purposes.
  I want to draw a distinction between the City Corporation and the Market Authority. I acknowledge that the City Corporation has this theoretical right for another two years, but it has stated to the Select Committee that it has abandoned any claim to use any part of the Islington site. It is desirable to have

  281
  that on record. Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, speaking with the full authority of the City Corporation, as reported in column 294 of the Minutes of Evidence, said:
  "Before I come to that, I should just wind up what I want to say about the Islington site, because it is important, I think, that the Committee should know it. We have now come to an agreement"—
  that is, the City Corporation—
  "with the London County Council on the subject of the abattoir. We have agreed that if a new site for the abattoir and its allied trades can be found at Maiden Lane, which Mr. Dockeray referred to the other day…and satisfactory financial terms can be agreed, we shall be prepared to hand over the whole of the Islington site to the London County Council. Negotiations are still in progress but I have to say that the Corporation has now, in the light of what has happened, given up all idea of using Islington for market storage purposes."
  That is satisfactory as far as the City Corporation is concerned. We do not want to find that, although the City Corporation has abandoned all idea of using the Islington site, the Market Authority comes along and thinks that it has some right to do so. The Minister may tell me that I am worrying about nothing. If he does, so much the better, but I have learned in the last three or four years that one cannot be too sure about all these things and that it is better to take every possible precaution.
  For the record, I would point out that the City Corporation's right under its Act to use the site temporarily for the next few years does not extend to the Market Authority. It is not transferable. It was a right given by Parliament to the City Corporation, but it cannot be transferred to the Market Authority by lease, tenancy or in any other way. That should be stated. It was given to the City Corporation to use and not to grant a lease for someone else to use it.
  I want these words added to the Bill to make it quite clear that the long-fought battle which has been waged to save the Caledonian Market area for the benefit of the people of Islington will not be lost and that there need be no fear that the Market Authority in this amended Bill will purport to have a right to look at this site as a possible annex. For those reasons I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. A. Evans: I am sorry to intervene at this stage when the Minister was about to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), and I will be brief. We regret that we have to take the Committee's time on this matter. It is a local matter, we agree, but my hon. Friend reminded the Committee that the struggle over the use of the Islington cattle market site took place two years ago and that, as a result of long discussions in the House and in Select Committee, a decision was reached.
  We were given by the Minister at that time an assurance that he did not intend to use the Caledonian Cattle Market site for the storage of produce and containers. Following a Question put to the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a representative of the Ministry told the Select Committee two years ago that it was not the intention of the then Minister to use this site in connection with Covent Garden. That definite assurance was given two years ago.
  The assurance was given by somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill that the Caledonian Cattle Market was not to be considered for this purpose. I quote from page 221 of the Minutes of Evidence. Mr. Norman Robert Culmore Dockeray, who I understand is one of the Minister's chief advisers, told the Select Committee,
  "do not think there is any prospect whatever of the Caledonian Market site being made available for this purpose."
  That is, the purpose of the storage of produce and containers. He added,
  "It could be used, of course, for a short period up to, I think, 29th July, 1963."
  We know that this is so under the powers granted to the City Corporation. The next question was,
  "But nobody would feel justified in spending a large sum of money in building any permanent storage there, because in the long term it is generally accepted that it is to be used for those other public purposes you referred to?"
  He replied, "Yes". Those other purposes are for houses, schools and so on. We have thus twice had from the Ministry a definite assurance that there is no intention of using the site of the Islington Cattle Market for the purposes of storage in connection with Covent Garden.

  283
  It would save us a lot of concern, it would save the Minister a heated battle, which he would have if he were ever to contemplate taking that site, and it would save the new Authority much pondering about the matter, if he would now either accept the Amendment or give the assurance, which has been given on two previous occasions, that it is not his intention to approve any move by the new Authority to take the Islington cattle market site for storage purposes.
  Mr. Cliffe: I have been quoted as saying that it might be a good idea if the Caledonian Market were reconsidered. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has taken my remarks a little out of context. Compared with the Caledonian Market, it would be perfectly ludicrous to choose for the site the junction of Old Street and City Road. It would be ludicrous to consider that a more suitable or desirable site. I repeat what I said before, that as an alternative to that site Caledonian Market obviously would be a much more suitable place. I simply refer hon. Members to what was said on the matter in the Select Committee.
  In Shoreditch and Finsbury we did not adopt an entirely parochial attitude towards this, as a matter affecting Shoreditch and Finsbury only. There was no serious objection from that point of view. Wherever there is a civilised community nowadays a market is an acceptable feature of normal life. It was the site suggested to which there was the strongest possible objection. That was why we raised the objections we did and went to the lengths we did.
  I support the contentions which have been submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). His borough is adjacent to my constituency, and I know the difficulties there have been in that borough. I know that there they have had to introduce a certain housing policy, which few of the other London boroughs have had to do, because of scarcity of land. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted because there is a desperate need of land for other purposes than this.
  Mr. Soames: The attitude taken by hon. Members opposite intrigues me. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and
  284
  Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe), now that he has got his lands in Finsbury struck out of the Bill, is quite prepared to accept an Amendment to ensure that on no account should the site be in Islington, but when the Finsbury lands were at risk what was his attitude? It was, "What is wrong with the Caledonian Market? That will be perfectly all right." I agree that it was not as a member of this Committee that he said that, but under the synonym of Alderman Michael Cliffe.
  Mr. Cliffe: That is not strictly true. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to point to any record of my making a statement like that. Can he point to any record of my saying that it should go to the Caledonian Market?
  Mr. Soames: It was what the hon. Member read out from some column of the Report of the Select Committee's proceedings which is not readily avail able to me. What he said was some thing very near to what I said he said. I do not think that I have misinterpreted—
  Mr. Cliffe: Oh, yes.
  Mr. Soames: —the aims, speeches or methods used by the hon. Member. So there we are.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), moving the Amendment, made, I thought, as is his wont, a speech of considerable advocacy which would have been very much in place had it been at an inquiry as to whether or not a site to which the Authority might like to go should be designated for its purposes. Of course, then it would not have been so readily available to his constituents as was the one he has made today. A very good one it was, too, but with great respect to him, I do not think that this is the time he need bother to make such a speech.
  Why so? For this reason. What happened upstairs was a discussion on whether the annex was or was not going to Finsbury. Upstairs, the Select Committee took out all reference to Finsbury lands and put Finsbury on all-fours with every other borough. That is what happened. That was the object. The object of the Select Committee would be completely thwarted if we were to accept the hon. Member's Amendment and therefore put one

  285
  borough in a different position from the others. I do not think that this Committee would want to be too much mesmerised by the hon. Member's advocacy to the extent of accepting his Amendment, which would make Islington different from a lot of other boroughs which equally, I am sure, feel very strongly about this. Yet the Amendment would do just that. It would run counter to the spirit and intention of the Select Committee. I do not think that that is what this Committee as a whole would want.
  What is really behind this is not just Islington as a whole. What the hon. Member really means is the Caledonian Market. That, really, is not for me. It is open to the Authority to apply in the normal way for planning permission for wherever it may choose to want to go. I cannot give the hon. Member an assurance here and now as to what will be built on the Caledonian Market. It is not my place to. It is not the Government's place to. This will go through the normal planning procedure.
  What I can tell the hon. Member—this is only the information I have acquired from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government—is that, as I understand it, the L.C.C. has already submitted proposals to my right hon. Friend for the use of that market for the purposes as he says, of open spaces, schools, and housing. I can only say, from what I have heard, that it seems very unlikely that it would be used differently. I say that from what I have heard, but I do not think that we can write that into the Bill or say in the Bill that the site should not be in one borough or one place. The hon. Member need not fear therefore that the site will necessarily be in that particular market, but he will understand that it is not for me to give an absolute, flat assurance as to what will be there. From all the information I have received it looks to me very unlikely that it would be in that particular place.
  Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman ought not to get so excited about the attitude of my hon. Friends, nor should he be surprised, because it is typical of Labour Members to fight for their constituencies and their constituents' interests—although I should like to get it on the record that I do not agree with
  286
  very much of what my hon. Friends have said today. However, no one living in Islington or Shoreditch or Finsbury can be anything but proud of his Member who represents him here.
  My hon. Friends' line, quite frankly, is this: "We do not care where this goes so long as it does not come to Islington or Shoreditch or Finsbury". The Amendment is moved to protect Islington's interests. I admire my hon. Friends for that, but I shall not support them, I say frankly, because what would the Amendment mean in effect? It would mean that this site could be in any other Metropolitan area—perhaps my own—where it might be equally unwise to put it.
  Mr. A. Evans: There is reason in what my hon. Friend is saying, but surely he cannot object to the Minister's reaffirming the statement made about the cattle market by his predecessors? All I am asking is that the Minister should reaffirm the statement, which has come from the Ministry on two occasions, that it is not intended to use the Islington cattle market for storage purposes.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: I do not mind what the Minister reaffirms if it helps my hon. Friend. All I say to him is that I do not believe that an Amendment of this kind is of any benefit to the other twenty-six Metropolitan boroughs. We all have the same deep-rooted objection. If the Authority decides to have an outside annex then it has to go through a great deal of procedure. I repeat for the record that I warn the Authority that most of us in London regard it as terrifying that any land which is needed for housing and for the rest of London's problems should be used for this purpose. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment. If he does not, then, acting in the name of the constituents of Bermondsey, I will oppose it.
  Mr. Fletcher: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I am not in the least intimidated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has said. I appreciate the technical difficulty of putting an Amendment in the Bill which appears to make an exception of a particular borough. However, I think that the Amendment has served its object. It has at any rate served the object that I had in mind.

  287
  It has ventilated the matter and has extracted from the Minister what I regard as a useful statement of the position. Therefore, with the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 17.—(DUTY OF THE AUTHORITY TO HAVE REGARD TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AND OBJECTS TO BE ATTAINED BY THEM.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Soames: I told hon. Members earlier that if an Amendment of note and importance to a Clause had been made by the Select Committee I would draw attention to it. Under this Clause, there is an Amendment to subsection (1) which requires the Authority to reduce the area of land in the Covent Garden area used for marketing purposes to not more than ten acres and to do the job within seven years. We regard this as reasonable and we see no reason why the target should not be achieved. The Authority has the right to come to the Minister so that the Minister may lay an order if seven years did not prove enough, but we have no reason to suppose that either of these figures will not be sufficient.
  Mr. Mellish: I take it that the 30 acres which the market is sited on now will be reduced to ten and that the remaining 20 acres will be available for other purposes?
  Mr. Soames: Yes. I should not like to be specific as to how many acres will be freed, but the market will be now concentrated into ten acres.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 18.—(ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY.)
  Mr. J. A. Leavey: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, to leave out subsection (2).
  If words continue to have any meaning, it seems to me that subsection (2) provides the Authority with powers which cannot be justified. That is why I seek
  288
  to have the subsection deleted from the Clause. The subsection states:
  "The Authority shall have power to do any thing and to enter into any transaction…which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their duties"—
  and the Authority's duties are referred to earlier in the Clause—
  "or to facilitate the exercise of any of their powers under the foregoing provisions of this section, or is incidental or conducive thereto."
  I should like to remind the Committee of the powers which the Clause provides to the Authority under subsection (1). Paragraph (a) gives the Authority power to provide vehicles, plant and machinery for transport purposes; paragraph (b)
  "to provide plant and machinery for accelerating or retarding the ripening of horticultural produce",
  and so on; paragraph (c)
  "to provide plant and machinery for washing or cleansing";
  paragraph (d)
  "to provide, or secure that there is provided,…rest rooms, canteens, washing facilities"
  and so on; paragraph (e)
  "to provide…facilities for enabling persons to carry on, at the place where the Authority are providing market facilities, business consisting of",
  etc. Then comes paragraph (f), which might be called the "etc. paragraph" which provides the Authority with power
  "to carry on all such other activities as it may appear to the Authority to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for them to carry on for or in connection with the discharge of their duties or with a view to making the best use of any of their assets."
  I suggest that this is a very all-embracing subsection. It gives power to the Authority to do virtually anything that it might feel it its duty to do. Even subsection (1) might be too broadly drawn, but the purpose of the Amendment is to delete subsection (2), which I believe is wholly unnecessary and undesirable.
  This is a nationalisation Measure on a small scale. We are setting up an Authority and providing it with certain obligations and powers, such as the power to borrow money. It will be able to enjoy advances from my right hon. Friend up to a limit of £8 million, as is specified in Clause 40. Parliament ought to define much more precisely than the Clause defines the limits of the Authority's powers. I believe that it is

  289
  undesirable as a matter of principle that we should draft a Bill in these terms. Unless words have ceased to have any meaning, subsection (2) is either unnecessary or undesirable. I suggest that probably it is both. As subsection (1, f) empowers the Authority
  "to carry on all such activities as it may appear to the Authority to be requisite",
  I cannot understand the necessity for subsection (2).
  This is essentially a point of principle which I think deserves my right hon. Friend's attention. Surely we are concerned with defining what the Authority is empowered to do with public money in the public interest. Surely we should not give it a blank cheque and carte blanche as these provisions do. If one subsection is necessary, then I submit that the other is unnecessary. I hope that I carry hon. Members with me by saying that if we want to write Parliament's intention into Bills then we should attempt to define much more closely what these powers should be and not to divest ourselves of responsibility, which we are bound to do by giving powers which are as wide and ill-defined as the provisions of subsection (1, f) and the unnecessary subsection (2).
  I urge my right hon. Friend not to brush my Amendment aside. I regret that a Conservative Government have permitted a subsection such as subsection (2) to appear in a Bill. I am not seeking to be partisan. This has not been that sort of debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment in view of his earlier attitude when he said that it was undesirable that the duties and, presumably, the powers of the Authority should be unduly extended. I bow to any hon. and learned Member who can read something into these words which a layman cannot appreciate. I hope that hon. Members appreciate the point that I am trying to make, namely, that subsection (2) will permit the Authority to do virtually anything that it pleases. I cannot imagine how any provision could give it greater powers. I urge my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to take the point that I am making, which is essentially different from the constituency points which have been made earlier. In saying that I make no criticism of those points.
  Mr. Mellish: We are certainly not talking about nationalised concerns. The Minister has reminded us that the Authority is very much akin to the Port of London Authority. This is a public authority to run Covent Garden. It has the support of those employed in the market and also of the employers. Unfortunately—as I would say—there is nothing in the Bill which will take away from the rights of those who trade there. They will have much the same facilities as they have enjoyed in the past.
  The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) should get his facts right. This is a genuine attempt to get the market organised in a better way. I am always surprised that when Conservative Members are dealing with a public body of any kind they are inclined to hurt that body and not give it a chance and then are the first to attack it for not doing its job.
  The words of the subsection are:
  "…or in connection with the discharge of their duties or with a view to making the best use of any of their assets."
  Into these words are read the most terrifying and appalling things. This is a public body trying to do its job, and now we are told that we must delete these words and not give the Authority the opportunity to do it.
  Sir W. Wakefield: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He is referring to Clause 18 (1, f), whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) was drawing attention to subsection (2) which is rather different.
  Mr. Mellish: The trouble with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) is that he has made up his mind so much that he was not even listening to his hon. Friend. Of course I know what Amendment is being moved. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton wants to delete subsection (2) because of what is contained in subsection (1, f). He made that point emphatically and said that if subsection (2) is removed it makes that power ineffective. He said that the subsection would give the Authority money and power to do all sorts of things to which he objected. I know exactly what the hon. Member said, and I know his intentions exactly.

  291
  In setting up a public authority of this kind, we must give it a chance to do its job reasonably well. We ought to have the opportunity at least once a year of discussing not only this authority but all public authorities, including the nationalised industries about which the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton gets so worked up. If I had my way, we would discuss them more and more. There is no question of state ownership here. This is a public authority which is given a job to do, and I hope that the Minister does not in any way indicate that he will restrict its authority to do these things. If he does, then we shall have the first Division of the debate on this Amendment.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I support the Amendment. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) that this is nationalisation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) would agree that it would be better to refer to this as on a par with new town development. I object to the Clause because it gives more power to this Authority than the New Towns Act, introduced by hon. and right hon. Members opposite gave. They were satisfied with the powers given under that Act. Why should the hon. Member for Bermondsey be surprised that we are surprised that a Conservative Government should be bringing in a much more Socialist Measure?
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is a famous business man. Can he imagine any effort in the business world being restricted in the way that he wants to restrict this Authority?
  Mr. Costain: Most certainly I would restrict a firm from carrying out activities which its own directors or experienced people were not capable of carrying out. Under this Clause the Authority could do anything. It could set up orange groves in Spain or decide that a groundnut scheme was good for Covent Garden. All I am concerned with is that the Authority should have powers commensurate with its experience and with the abilities of its technical staff. No indication was given to the Select Committee that these experts would have these powers. Why will the Minister not agree to restrict these powers in
  292
  the same way as they were restricted under the New Towns Act, 1946, by hon. and right hon. Members opposite?
  7.15 p.m.
  Sir W. Wakefield: The Committee should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) for raising this point and giving us a further opportunity to consider the very wide powers that the Authority is to be given under the Bill. On Second Reading I drew attention to the fact that these wide powers were being given. I support what has been said from this side of the Committee about them. I do not see why they should be given to the Authority. Surely the Authority ought to be able to carry out its duties and discharge all functions that may be necessary and make the best use of its assets without having these extremely wide powers.
  The Authority is required to run a market and that is something which many local authorities do. Yet here it is proposed to give the Authority far wider powers than are ever granted to any local authority. When a local authority is granted powers they are defined and restricted. It is surely only right that an authority of this nature, whose job is strictly limited, should have its powers likewise strictly limited.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said that the powers were so wide that the Authority might be able to set up orange groves in Spain. He is not far wrong. Covent Garden markets produce from all over the world, and under the Clause there is nothing whatever to prevent the Authority doing what my hon. Friend suggests. There is no reason why it should not run a Hovercraft to carry bananas from the West Indies, because it could be said that that facilitated the carrying out of its functions.
  Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. Member read the Preamble and see what the Bill is about?
  Sir W. Wakefield: There is no need to do that, in view of the Clause which gives the widest power to the Authority to carry out any transaction
  "…calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their duties…"
  which is to market produce which comes from all over the world. I suggest that

  293
  the Government ought to take another look at this Clause in another place. They should see whether something cannot be done to restrict these wide powers.
  Mr. Mellish: The Preamble uses the simple words:
  "…to make provision for the conduct…under the control of the Covent Garden Market Authority, of activities relating to the dealing in bulk in horticultural produce; and to make provision with respect to matters arising out of the matters aforesaid."
  I do not think that under those terms one could bring in orange groves in Spain.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Why not? If by conducting a market in Covent Garden one could facilitate the selling of oranges or of other fruit grown in any part of the world, then, according to the Clause, it would be perfectly within the Authority's power to do these things. This is the point raised in the Amendment. The Clause is far too wide for the restricted requirements of the Covent Garden Market Authority.
  There are two questions which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend. First, will he ensure that the consent of the Minister must be obtained before lands are acquired for purposes other than marketing and storage facilities? If the Authority finds itself with surplus funds, it may desire to invest in land or something of that kind. That should not be done without the Minister's consent.
  Secondly, in view of the wide powers the Authority is to have, what authority will the Westminster City Council have over it?
  The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. That does not arise on this subsection.
  Sir W. Wakefield: I was trying to ascertain whether these wide powers for the new Authority mean that the authority of Westminster City Council is impaired. My question is related exactly to this subsection and the powers it confers upon the Authority.
  If we are to give the Authority such wide powers—which may mean, for instance, that it will be exempted from the law of nuisance—then we should be told about them. I cannot feel satisfied that this Committee would wish the authority of Westminster City Council to be taken over by this new body, or
  294
  that the Council should not be able to discharge its duties in the Covent Garden area. It is because of these various aspects, which are causing anxiety in some people's minds, that I hope that we can have the position clarified. Better still, in view of what has been said in this debate, the Government might in another place seek to restrict some of the very wide powers to be given to the new Authority.
  Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has been busy placing things on record today, was determined to place on record his view of public authorities, and he did so with his usual eloquence and enthusiasm. He is doubtful that the new Authority will be entitled under this Bill to do practically everything it wants. If, however, he looks at Clause 16 (2) he will see that it is mandatory on the Authority to provide storage facilities outside the market area. There is no reason why it should not have a storage area for grapefruit in the West Indies, and sell them by sample in Covent Garden or, indeed, in Bermondsey.
  As I understand Clause 18 (2) the Authority will have complete power outside the control of this House. It has been said earlier that we shall have no right to ask questions about its day-today operations. It will be in the same position as that of the boards of nationalised industries as far as Questions in this House are concerned. We shall not be able to get Questions past the Table except by using the expedients which some of us use from time to time.
  The Minister expressed great concern lest, under the Amendment which I moved earlier, the Authority should be outside the control of the House in the selection of an alternative site for the market. This was a matter of grave personal concern to him. Yet apparently he is quite prepared to accept the powers under this subsection, which are outside the control of the House. They are the widest possible powers. As far as I can see, there is to be no restriction upon the Authority. There is a contradiction in the approach to this Clause as against the approach to my proposed Amendment to Clause 16.
  Mr. Vane: My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) has, quite understandably, moved

  295
  his Amendment so that we can examine the powers which it is proposed to give to the new Authority. The job of the Authority is to provide a market in a general area which we have been speaking about—
  Mr. Mellish: And not in Spain.
  Mr. Vane: —and not in Spain. It is correct to say that the Select Committee examined a proposal on the same lines as the Amendment, and rejected it for good reason. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me when I explain.
  The powers which it is proposed to give the Authority seem very wide when one reads this subsection, but they are not wide by commercial standards, and no wider than what is normal in the memoranda of association of public companies. My hon. Friends who have supported the Amendment probably have closer associations with the business world than I have, and I am sure they would not enjoy the prospect of being responsible for large scale businesses where some such powers did not exist.
  Mr. John Hall: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the actions of the directors of companies are outside the control of their shareholders?
  Mr. Vane: They frequently seem to be in practice, whatever they may be in theory.
  We have not broken new ground in drafting the powers of the Authority in this way but, broadly speaking, have followed precedent. This Authority will have the same sort of powers as this Committee has given to other bodies charged with comparable responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who is a constituent of mine, exercised a constituent's licence to exaggerate when making representations to his Member when he spoke about overseas developments and other figments of his imagination.
  It is absolutely right that we should check any proposal of this sort before it leaves the Committee. It is also right for us to see, when we set up an Authority of this kind, that it has the powers to do its job. One of the checks which my hon. Friends have not mentioned
  296
  is that there is an annual report. Orange groves and other overseas ventures would be noticed in such a report. They could not be concealed. No doubt they would attract the attention not only of my hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment but of other hon. Members as well.
  Later in the Bill there is a series of financial checks. My right hon. Friend will have a wide variety of powers, so that he will exercise a not insubstantial measure of control over the Authority's finances. These powers may seem wide if one reads them as they were read out here this afternoon but—
  Mr. Leavey: They may seem wide as they appear in the Bill, but what is the point of a set of sentences unless they mean what they say? Although the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has misunderstood my purpose a little, if we have in Clause 18 (1, f) the words
  "to carry on all such other activities.…"
  et cetera, et cetera, it seems unnecessary to add subsection (2) which virtually is the et cetera, et cetera. Is it wise to quote precedent? Is not this the moment not to follow precedent?
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Vane: I follow the argument of my hon. Friend about whether it is always worth checking that it is wise to follow a precedent, but I do not think he has understood the purpose of his Amendment. If subsection (2) were taken out of the Bill, the Authority's powers to acquire or dispose of property would be hampered. There are specific proposals in it, and it is intended that the words shall mean what they say. I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree that this is not an outrageous proposal but the right thing to do. When we set up an Authority of this type, we have to bear in mind its commercial responsibilities and give it comparable powers; otherwise the whole purpose of the Bill would be frustrated.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 19.—(POWER OF THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LAND COMPULSORILY UNDER TOWN AND COUNTRY PLAN- NING ACT, 1947.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. A. Evans: I hope I can induce the Minister to deal briefly with this Clause. I have no desire to detain the Committee too long. It is clear from Clause 19 that the new Market Authority will have power, subject to the approval of the Minister and to the usual planning checks, for compulsory purchase. For this purpose, as the last paragraph of subsection (1) says:
  "in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land under the said section thirty-seven".
  That is, of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—
  "by virtue of this subsection, the appropriate Minister shall be the Minister."
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be the Minister concerned in the operation of this Clause in connection with any projects for acquisition which the new Market Authority might have in mind. I ask what his general attitude will be towards proposals by the Authority compulsorily to acquire a particular site.
  I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to reply in detail, but I remind him that on two occasions from his Ministry have come rather questionable decisions about acquisition. I do not wish to be offensive, but his Ministry is not equipped to make decisions about compulsory purchase and to take the broad public view of the various uses to which any particular site might be put. That is a planning consideration. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in any project put up by the Authority he should consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is the planning Minister. Then we would know that before any project is launched the Minister of Agriculture has consulted the Authority and taken pains to discuss with the appropriate planning Minister before giving consent to the Authority to go ahead with any project.
  I would not raise this question but for the fact that the Minister and all of us know that his Ministry is not, and is not meant to be, adequately equipped to take the broad public view of any project for compulsory acquisition before it is launched.
  Mr. Soames: I take the point made by the hon. Member. I am the Minister to make the decision at the end of the day, but there is plenty of machinery
  298
  which has to be gone through before the matter reaches me.
  In reply to the question of how I see this power being used, I would say that, first, it might be used for an annex and, secondly, for the purchase of land on which to build a new market. Those, broadly, are the two main purposes for which I see this power being used. Both would be considerable projects. The market will cover six to ten acres. I find it rather difficult to assess how big the other project need be—it is for the Authority to say—but both would be considerable projects which would go through the planning machinery.
  The Authority would say that it wanted a certain piece of land. It would go to the London County Council, which is the planning authority, to have the land designated for that purpose. The Minister of Housing and Local Government could be called in and there might be a public inquiry. I should have thought that would be almost inevitable, certainly in the case of the annex, but it would be up to the Minister of Housing and Local Government who is equipped to deal with these matters. The planning authority would decide whether planning permission should be given. I have nothing whatever to do with planning permission. That is for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. After the planning authority had made the decision, it would be for me to say whether the building should go up.
  This is analagous to the position of the Minister of Power when the Coal Boards wants to buy some land. It has to be designated and the project has to go through the normal planning machinery. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) will feel that his mind is set at rest on this point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 20 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 33.—(THE COVENT GARDEN MARKET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Mellish: We now come to that part of the Bill which concerns the constitution of a committee with executive

  299
  and advisory functions for facilitating the work of the Covent Garden Market Authority. Was Clause 33 amended in any way? Could the Minister say something about that, because this is vary important and his words will be carefully read by those who have to operate this provision in the months and years ahead. I should like to know what amendment was made in the Select Committee to the functions of the Management Committee and how that ties up with the present arrangements in the market.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for raising this question. This was one of the Clauses where substantial amendment was made upstairs and to which I was under obligation to refer in Committee. As the Clause stood when the Bill went upstairs, it was for the Authority to put to the Market Management Committee any subject which the Authority thought was proper to put to it, which was of interest to it and within its powers to discuss. The point was made to the Select Committee on a petition from the Covent Garden tenants that the traffic should also go the other way—that the Management Committee should consult the Authority on matters which the Committee wished to raise and which were within its competence.
  The effect of the Amendment which was made empowers the Market Management Committee, which is the advisory committee of producers and traders, to make representations to the Authority on any matter appearing to the Committee to affect the interests of persons represented on it and requiring the Authority to take those representations into consideration. This ties up quite closely with what I gather the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the Amendment which he will be moving to Clause 35.
  As to the Management Committee generally, the Authority is required to consult it on all matters affecting its interests, and the Committee is given the right to make representations to the Authority in regard to any regulations or byelaws made by the Authority, and matters of the day-to-day supervision and control of the Market, or of storage facilities, may be delegated by the Authority
  300
  to the Management Committee. That is the broad outline of its purpose.
  Mr. Ede: Could the right hon. Gentleman say who appoints the Committee and who are the electors? The Clause provides:
  "(1) On the day on which the Authority are constituted, there shall be constituted a Committee,"
  and so on. Is this some sort of parthenogenesis that occurs on this amazing day?
  Mr. Soames: It is the Authority itself which appoints the Management Committee, and it is in duty bound to consult all the organisations whose interests are served as to the way in which they should be represented on the Committee, but it is for the Authority itself to appoint it.
  Mr. Mellish: Is that right? I had the impression, and I must plead some ignorance about this, that the Management Committee had to be constituted by itself, as it were. At the moment, at the Market, we have the employers' establishment, and it seems to be the likeliest thing that they would form themselves into a Management Committee. Do I understand that it is the Authority itself which will say that certain people shall constitute the Management Committee, leaving out certain others? Is that right?
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me time to refresh my memory, which I have now done. The chairman is to be the managing director of the Authority, and he will be there ex officio by virtue of the fact that he will be managing director of the Authority. The members other than the chairman are to be appointed by the Authority, and seven are to represent the interests of wholesalers and seven the interests of persons who sell to or buy from the wholesalers. The Authority is required to consult the appropriate representative bodies of these interests before making the appointment.
  Mr. Mellish: It means that the wholesalers will nominate a number of nominees up to seven and that they will be accepted by the Authority?
  Mr. Soames: That is right.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 34.—(THE COVENT GARDEN TRAFFIC COMMITTEE.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Mellish: I do not think this Clause was amended in the Select Committee. I do not know whether it is in order to say this, but I hope it is, because it bears upon a question I want to ask. I should like to protest at the way in which all of us here have had to operate on this Bill, without any explanation of what the Select Committee did or did not do. This Report of the Select Committee covers hundreds of pages, but it does not give any summary of any kind of what the Select Committee did. This makes the life of a humble Member of Parliament very difficult when he is trying to understand a Bill with these complications. I for one am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has co-operated, but he is very lucky to have many people behind him—first-class people who are backing him up. I wish we had one of them to help us.
  From our point of view, this is a great difficulty, and I am therefore asking this question on Clause 34. I hope that the Minister might like to say a word about this. He says that this Clause is the means by which he will co-operate with the Minister of Transport about the congestion arising from this new market and how it will in fact be obliterated. I hope that when he replies he will agree with me about the Select Committee.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Leavey: Before my right hon. Friend replies, perhaps I may be of assistance to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I rather think, though I stand to be corrected, that the Members of the Select Committee, of whom I had the honour of being one, are not permitted, or at least are not expected, to give their reasons for the changes which are made. That does not necessarily mean that the Minister is not able to make some explanation of the changes, but I think I am right in saying that the Members sitting on a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill, after taking their decisions, are not required or expected to give reasons for those decisions.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Godfrey Nicholson): I would remind the Committee that we are on Clause 34.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is only trying to be helpful.
  The Temporary Chairman: I know, but we are on Clause 34.
  Mr. Soames: This is the second of the three Committees to be set up under this Bill. The first is the Management Committee, the second is the Traffic Committee under this Clause, and the third, under Clause 35, is the Workers Committee. This Committee is to consist of a chairman, who will be the managing director of the Authority, and from nine to 12 other members appointed by the Authority who are to be traffic experts. Nine of these experts are to be nominated by Ministers and other interested bodies. The Authority's duties in relation to the relief of traffic congestion, which are set out in Clause 17, are duties to which we attach the greatest importance, and this Traffic Committee will provide expert advice in connection with this important aspect of the matter. The Minister of Transport will nominate two persons, and seven other are to be nominated, respectively, by the Minister of Agriculture, the Home Secretary, the London County Council, the Westminster City Council, the Holborn Metropolitan Borough Council, the British Transport Commission and the T.U.C. I think this is a fairly broad and satisfactory cross-section of the traffic interests, so that they should be well represented on the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 35.—(THE COVENT GARDEN MARKET WORKERS COMMITTEE.)
  Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, in page 33, line 12, to leave out "not being more than five".
  With your permission, Sir Godfrey, perhaps it would be convenient to discuss this Amendment with the following two Amendments—
  In page 33, line 19, to leave out "appear to them to"
  In line 26, to leave out from "matter" to the end of the line and to insert "which affects or is".

  303
  They are all probing Amendments, which I put down because we only wanted to ask a number of questions.
  The Temporary Chairman: That will be convenient to the Committee.
  Mr. Mellish: I am not quite clear why the Authority should decide that there shall not be more than five members of such a committee, nor am I quite clear why the Authority should be the body to say whether anything is in the best interests of those involved, and why they should be the people to decide questions affecting those representing those interests. I do not like the wording—
  "Such bodies as appear to them"
  It seems to give the Authority a little more power than it need necessarily have in this Bill. In subsection (3) we are dealing with matters likely to affect the workers engaged, and we have the words—
  "appearing to the Authority to be likely"—
  and so on. I have no doubt that this was done by the Parliamentary draftsmen with the very best intentions, and, unlike some of the criticisms that were made earlier of the Authority that is being set up, I do not start off with the impression that it will consist of a lot of bad people determined to harm the interests of those who work in Covent Garden. The Minister is entitled to give us some kind of explanation, and if it is satisfactory, I can give him the assurance now that I shall seek, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw the Amendment.
  Having said that, I hope it is in order on Clause 35 generally to put this to him. One of the complications is that in present circumstances we have pretty good worker-management relations in Covent Garden. I think that in many ways they are extremely good.
  On the conciliation committee are represented the tenants and the trade unions. There is conciliation machinery that works. In this country, of course, the only reports we ever get in the newspapers are of disputes and rows. Those hit the headlines, and everyone remembers them. What is often forgotten are the hours of hard work put in by conciliation committees and the trade unions generally—and, for that matter, the
  304
  employers—which lead to a settlement of so many of these disputes. I understand that the present conciliation machinery is welcomed by the workers and by the employers, so that this is one of the few occasions in my life on which I can say that I am speaking for both sides of industry—most unusual for me.
  That being so, can the Minister say what will happen to the existing conciliation committee? We are already setting up enough committees. Someone once said to me, "Democracy is a committee-ridden structure," but I am all for it if it will avoid trouble, providing that at the end of the day we get some decisions. There is some concern felt about this, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the assurance I seek.
  The ambit of this committee will be wide, and I gather that matters for consultation and negotiation will include those arising from the power of the Authority to provide vehicles, plant, machinery and the like. Clause 33 has been amended, and I am sure that it would be a good thing if the Minister would also consider amending this Clause in order to make certain that the conciliation machinery is maintained, as I believe that the workers' committee referred to in the Clause will be a body quite different from the existing conciliation committee. Perhaps the Minister will give me that assurance, and will also give us some idea of what exactly the Authority will do.
  Mr. Ede: I want to refer to the Amendment in line 26. As I read the Clause, when the committee meets all the initiative rests with the Authority, but it seems advisable, if we are to have such a committee, that the workers should be able to raise matters without having first to get the consent of the Authority. I have served on one or two committees of this sort, mainly in the interests of the employees, and I have found that trouble can often be avoided if the workers' representatives can say to the authority concerned that, for instance, something has happened in the locality that makes some of the regulations legitimately made by an authority very inconvenient for the time being.
  An alteration in a bus timetable can make it inconvenient for people to arrive and depart in accordance with

  305
  regulations legitimately made by an authority when the bus left at a time that fitted in very well. I know that this is very elementary, but it can cause trouble. The men feel, "Nobody cares what happens to us. The regulation states 6.30, but the bus now leaves at 6.29, or arrives at 6.33, so we have to waste twenty minutes or half an hour because of something that could be easily adjusted if we were able to put it forward."
  I am certain that if this committee is one in which all the initiative comes from the Authority it will not yield the maximum amount of good for the general working of the Authority when we get down to the ordinary working arrangements where, quite frequently, a short conversation can ease the sort of irritating frictions that lead to loss of temper and a feeling that nobody cares.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful both to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for drawing attention to these points. With regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, I may say that in December last we suggested to the T.U.C. an upper limit of five members for the workers' committee. As we received no comment, we took it that the T.U.C. accepted that limit, and put it in the Bill. I am not sure that there is not something in what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and that it may be too rigid, but I do not think that this Amendment goes the right way about it.
  If the Amendment were accepted it could mean three members as well as not more than five. However, we will consider it. I thought that we might consult the T.U.C. and the T. & G.W.U., and if there was a general feeling that something on these lines would be an advantage—as, perhaps, it would—we could move an Amendment in another place making the number, say, between five and eight or five and ten members.
  On the Amendment in line 19 I cannot be so forthcoming as I was on the first, or as I shall be on that in line 26, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Someone has to decide which are the interests, and the decision should rest with the Authority. Otherwise, it does not rest with anybody. If the reference is merely to the interests concerned, it is
  306
  open to challenge in the courts at some time that someone's interests—those of a break-away union or someone else—have not been consulted whereas it is laid down that they should have been. The decision has to be left with the Authority as, indeed, it was left in the Acts passed between 1945 and 1950 which set up the Steel Board, the Coal Board and the like. I think that we must leave it as a duty on the Authority, but we would, of course, expect the Authority to consult the T.U.C.
  I appreciate the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. In the Select Committee, a petition was put forward by the tenants of Covent Garden that in the Management Committee there should be the sort of two-way traffic of which I spoke on Clause 33, and the Amendment suggests that that should be carried into the workers' committee as well. The wording of the Amendment in line 26 is not quite right, and the T.U.C. has been in touch with us on the subject. I wrote to that body at the end of April in reply to a request that an Amendment to the effect suggested should be made. I said that we were in process of working out the most effective Amendment. Again, we will, in another place, table an Amendment to meet the point of two-way traffic, so that if the workers find something that may be annoying they can bring it to the Authority and will not have to wait for the Authority to bring it to them. That, I think, will meet the situation.
  Mr. Mellish: I wonder whether the Amendment in another place will establish the position of the conciliation committee now in being; whether anything now brought into the Bill will affect the conciliation machinery in it?
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Soames: All that the Amendment which I envisage would do is to provide that instead of there being one-way traffic from the Authority down to the workers' committee, a subject could be initiated at the instigation of the workers' committee as well as the instigation of the Authority, but that would not affect the conciliation committee.
  Mr. Mellish: So that the conciliation committee as such would remain in being to do the work which it has always done in the past.
  Mr. Soames: Yes.
  Mr. Ede: It would be a rather wider Amendment than that which my hon. Friend has put down because there is a duty on the Authority to consult, but no power is now given to the workers to initiate discussions which they might wish to take place.
  Mr. Soames: That is exactly right and that is why I did not think it right to accept the Amendment. That is exactly the sense of what I want to include in the Bill.
  Mr. Mellish: With all those assurances and thanking the Minister for going as far as he has, and in view of his assurance that the conciliation committee will be in being to deal with wages and conditions and the general heartaches which go with the market, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Temporary Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) desire to move either of the other two Amendments?
  Mr. Mellish: No, Sir.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 36 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 46.—(REPORTS, ACCOUNTS AND RETURNS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Subsection (4) says:
  "The report required…shall include such information relating to the plans, and past and present activities, of the Authority…as the Minister may from time to time direct."
  Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in that annual report there will be information about the progress made with reducing the area of land in Covent Garden used for dealing in bulk and storage? As each year goes by, it seems important that that specific information should be included in the report and we should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that he will see that it is included.
  Mr. Soames: In general terms I can give that assurance. The Minister is empowered to direct that the Authority
  308
  shall include certain things in its report—information about its plans and past and present activities and its financial position. During the preliminary years, while the market is being shrunk, it is obvious that the area of land released will be an essential feature if not the main feature of the annual report, and if it is appropriate in any particular year for that information to be given, I am sure that that is something which the Authority would be glad to include and, I hope, something which it will be proud to include.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 47 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill has been through the hands of a Select Committee which made certain Amendments to it, but we have finally reached the Third Reading.
  It is time that the problem of Covent Garden Market was tackled. This is a major task and considerable responsibility will rest on the Authority. It will be far from being an easy job, but it is widely felt throughout the country that it is time the Covent Garden situation was tackled, and it can be tackled only by this kind of legislation and by putting the market into the hands of a statutory authority.
  The Authority has to get a new market built within 10 acres—instead of having it sprawled over many acres with wheelbarrows and parked lorries. I have no doubt that the new market will be much appreciated by those who work in Covent Garden and earn their living there, and they will appreciate having better facilities as will those who earn their living by selling their produce through the market for the country as a whole.

  309
  I want to thank everyone, from the members of the Runciman Committee onwards, who has given thought to this matter for the help and co-operation which we have received in drawing up the Bill, and I am sure that its fruits will be as great as we hope.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: It will be recognised that the atmosphere in the House is slightly different from that on Second Reading. We then had a great speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who was at his very finest. We then had what everyone will agree was the best knock-about speech that the House has seen from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It had nothing to do with the Bill, but we did not expect that it would. It was a great effort and there was an enormous storm and no one visualised that when we came to Third Reading all would be peaceful and well.
  I must make a formal protest about the way in which the Bill has been dealt with and about the procedure of sending it to a Select Committee. Members of the Opposition have to do homework to be able to argue their case. The Minister is helped by first-class people who can do his reading for him and give him notes—not always, because he is a hardworking Minister and does much of his own work. However, members of the Opposition have had to collect evidence about what the Select Committee thought, not so much in the detailed arguments, as on the conclusions.
  We should alter our procedure so that we can find from a summary what the Select Committee did. The case made by the petitioners should be clear, because lack of information hampered us in Committee. I say that in the hope that those who are responsible for these matters will take note so that someone
  310
  in the Parliament of the year 2050—I do not think any change will be made until then—may benefit.
  We have set up a new Authority and new committees—traffic, management and workers'—designed to make Covent Garden Market something of which we can be proud. The market has done a good job and most people in London take it for granted. In spite of the many fanciful stories about exorbitant charges and so on, on the whole people get their vegetables and other produce from the market reasonably cheaply. As a young trade union official, before the war I spent many hours in the market and came to know it very well. Both the employers and the workers there are experts at their jobs and they have done very well. The Bill will give them the encouragement which they need. They were always frightened that some great planners would get hold of the market and push it out. No one knew where it would be pushed to.
  This argument about traffic going through London to get to the market is all very well, but wherever the market is set up there will always be traffic converging on it from all directions. There will always be a problem. Provided the traffic committee does a good job of work, and provided this market is redesigned with the London of tomorrow in view, we can rest content that the Bill will have achieved what the Minister set out to do.
  It is most unusual for a Labour Member to thank a Tory for anything, but I thank the Minister for the interest he has shown and I wish the Bill and those who will be associated with it well in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  LAND DRAINAGE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.
  LAND DRAINAGE BILL

    Clause 27.—(SCHEMES FOR DRAINAGE OF SMALL AREAS.)
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, in page 16, line 33, after "works", to insert:
    "or that the development of land in the area in accordance with an application under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 to 1959, is likely to affect adversely the drainage of that land or of other land in the area so as to make remedial works desirable."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think it would be convenient if the House also discussed the Amendments in page 16, line 36, after "land", insert:
    "as may be necessary from time to time".
    In page 16, line 36, at end insert:
    "improvement remedial or".
    Mr. Willey: That will meet our general convenience.
    Here we are back again on the Land Drainage Bill after a six months' stint, and I hope that we are in sight of the end of our labours. This Clause deals with schemes for the drainage of small areas and widens the power of the county authorities to promote local improvement schemes. More important, it extends to a river board the right to promote local improvement schemes where the constitution of an internal drainage district would not be practicable.
    I said in Committee upstairs that I regarded this provision relating to the river boards as the most important part of this Clause. The Amendments we are discussing are based on a proposal which I, and no doubt other hon. Members, have received from the Clerk to the River Nene Board. His board believes that the Clause should be extended to deal with land which may be adequately drained at the moment but which may be adversely affected by a proposed and known development. That is why the Amendments have been tabled. Anyone who thinks about the River Nene thinks at once of the effects of the ironstone working in the area.
    The difficulty with the Clause as drafted is that it is confined to areas
    312
    capable of improvement by drainage works. In other words, it is confined to the situation which exists at present and there is power to prepare schemes in advance for future developments. When the result of the ironstone workings is known, one can anticipate a general disturbance of the topography and a silting up of the streams in the area. It is for those reasons that we have tabled these Amendments.
    8.15 p.m.
    I say at once that I realise that these difficulties are at present met by agreement. In fact, the Clerk to the Nene River Board referred me to an example at Finedon where the workings are being carried on by Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwins. He says:
    "With a view to overcoming this difficulty, the County Council, the Mining Company, and this Board are to enter into a collateral Agreement before the Planning Authority are prepared to consent to the development which provides that the County Council will prepare a Scheme for the execution of any remedial drainage works which may be necessary."
    I realise that the River Boards Association believes that these difficulties can be overcome in that way, but I have tabled these Amendments because the River Nene River Board is an important one. It is faced with these difficulties, and if it is possible to provide the safeguards proposed in the Clause I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    I believe, too, that there are something in the way of precedents in both the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1957, and the Opencast Coal Act, 1958. For those reasons, in spite of the provision which is at present made through the agreement I have mentioned, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) moved the Amendment in a way which echoed the discussion we had on a new Clause the last time we met, although his present representations are not so wide as those brought forward on that occasion. I wondered whether he had been in touch with the Nene River Board on this point, because I know that that board was concerned with this problem, not least because it has, as the hon. Gentleman said, to deal

    313
    with the problem of ironstone workings in its area which, without proper liaison and administrative arrangements being made, could cause drainage problems in a different area. On the other hand, the proposed Amendment does not attract the support of the River Boards Association generally because it understands that it will be very difficult to operate in this context.
    Clause 27 is entitled:
    "Schemes for drainage of small areas."
    It is not intended to deal with major works. It is intended to deal with small local problems, and it hardly seems appropriate to insert an Amendment of this kind which would imply drainage other than can be described as local drainage works.
    It would not be a logical extension, and if hon. Members consider what has been put to the House they will see that it would be difficult in practice to draw up schemes in anticipation of the effects of planning decisions. That, in effect, is what the Amendment means. Nor would those paying necessarily be those who would benefit from the work, and that is inherent in the small drainage schemes. We would have problems created, maybe at a distance, by work done in a different part of the area, and benefits divorced from payment.
    When we discussed a similar Clause on a previous occasion, we discussed at the same time the relevance of planning considerations in this regard. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me about this. If we are to have planning as a vital power we must avoid stripping it of powers whenever a technical reason is put forward.
    From time to time, technical reasons are put forward by different interests who say that it would be much better if they settled the matter on technical grounds and took it away from the concept of planning. But I suggest that if planning is to be vital, it must be accepted as taking account and being responsible for technical considerations of all kinds. It must not be looked on simply as a power to deal with the residue of problems which, for some reason or other, have not sufficiently powerful interests to take them out of the planning sphere.
    Here we have what is basically a planning problem. It has technical interests,
    314
    but it is a planning issue and one which ought to be dealt with by liaison arrangements between the river boards and the planning authorities. If it is to be effective, planning must imply a very widespread system of liaison with all the technical services. I do not think it at all out of the ordinary to expect a problem like this to be dealt with administratively in that way. I am sure that it would be a better way in which to deal with the problem than trying to graft something on to this Clause which would change completely its intention and balance and make it, in effect, extremely difficult to work.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think I am unsympathetic to the problem. I appreciate that there is a problem, but I think that we should attempt to meet it in other ways. I am sure that it would be better to try to meet it in a way different from that proposed in the Amendment.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. The hon. Gentleman spoke of my being in touch with the Nene River Board. In fact, it was the other way round. The Nene River Board has been in touch with this matter through its members and I have become cognisant of its point of view. In spite of the view of the River Boards Association, it felt it should raise this matter and I considered that it ought to be raised by way of an Amendment. I wish to emphasise that although, as I said, in this case the board has been able to take advantage of these agreements, it does not regard the agreements as entirely satisfactory.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that there are two difficulties. One is the financial difficulty, which I will not pursue further, as it might provoke another discussion on the financial support for drainage. I do not think that because of financial difficulties we should preclude ourselves from providing the means to take effective action. I can see the practical difficulties, and I appreciate very much a Conservative Minister speaking about planning with such fervour, particularly about comprehensive all-in planning.
    For that reason, and because I am greatly encouraged by this conversion to all-purpose planning, I feel that it would be unwise to press these Amendments any

    315
    further at the present time. I rest my hopes on the declared intention of the Parliamentary Secretary that the most practical and effective means of dealing with this sort of problem is to encourage a greater recourse to comprehensive planning and provide for the utmost liaison between the Parties affected. Therefore, encouraged and heartened by this assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, to leave out "navigation authority or".
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) feels so encouraged at so early a stage. I hope that I shall be able to help him in other ways as we proceed with our discussions.
    When we discussed this subsection during the Committee stage, various suggestions were made as to extending the list of bodies which should be consulted before a small local drainage scheme was put forward under the terms of the Clause. It was suggested that the correct way to deal with the proposal was not to add to the list which at the moment specifies only the navigation authority, and that is followed by the words:
    "or other persons appearing to them affected by the scheme."
    To strike out the one authority specified does not exclude it. In fact, by the following words it is included. It would seem that we ought to stick to the general phrase rather than try to specify. If one adds one sort of authority, there is no reason why others should not be added. I hope the House will agree that the subsection would read better without those words.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the modesty of some hon. Gentlemen who raised this matter during the Committee stage, and on their behalf, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for, in effect, meeting the point which was then discussed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, at the end to insert:
    "and a copy of the report to the Minister of the person so appointed shall be supplied by the Minister to the persons by whom the objections are made".
    316
    Obviously there is anxiety to make expeditious progress and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that we might have a system of "one up, one down." We have just lost one group of Amendments and so I think that we can claim this one.
    We are trying to ensure that the safeguards recommended by the Franks Committee are adopted in this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment which, I think, is in line with the recommendations of the Franks Committee. I claim at once that it has the support of the Country Landowners' Association and for that if for no other reason I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government. I think that in these cases the report should be made available wherever possible. It was one of the main purposes of the Franks Committee to ensure that this should be done. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is nodding. I hope that that signifies his agreement, and in the anticipation that this Amendment will be accepted. I will say no more.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Vane: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made a good suggestion as to how we might make progress. I indeed hope that we shall make progress, but perhaps we should not be so rigid as to follow the hon. Gentleman's particular suggestion.
    I agree entirely with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman suggests in the Amendment: that we should follow the recommendations of the Franks Committee and that we should not deny to those who are affected a copy of the inspector's report. On the other hand, I suggest to the House that really it is better that we should have precise rules laid down dealing with specific forms of inquiry which can be made to apply in different cases, rather than that we should attempt to write the rules into each Bill which comes before this House.
    Perhaps I can put this in a more simple way. We should not rewrite the rules into every Bill and, in this connection, I can tell hon. Members that at this moment the Lord Chancellor is in consultation with the Council on Tribunals and it is, in fact, intended that rules of

    317
    procedure for specific types of inquiry will be laid down.
    In certain earlier Statutes—those for which my right hon. Friend has been responsible—sentences were added, but that was before we received the Franks Committee Report, and I suggest that it would be better that we should apply the rules which are now in the process of being considered, rather than attempt to write a sentence or two into this Bill now. This is in accordance with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, even though I am not able to accept the words he proposes.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I very much regret that the Minister has refused to accept the Amendment on the ground that it is better to lay down a general body of rules, which are being discussed by the Tribunal, rather than write into the Bill rules which we assume are to cover every exigency.
    One of the things from which this country is suffering—with planning authorities and all sorts of people in different Departments making decisions—is that the victims of those decisions can never get a real answer as to the grounds on which the decisions were made. In land drainage matters, no two cases can be the same.
    Mr. Vane: It is not our intention that any one should be denied the information referred to by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). It is the normal practice for such information to be given. We are concerned to see that there is some authority behind that. There are two ways of doing it. I have suggested one way. I do not depart from the hon. Gentleman's proposal that the information should, in fact, be available to those who want it.
    Mr. Bence: In that case, why not write it into the Bill? That is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was asking—that the information given to the Minister on a particular scheme should be available to those persons who are concerned, either in objecting or supporting the scheme. They should be given the information on which the Minister has made his decision to go forward or to reject a scheme.
    318
    This is important, because it always seems to me that in our history, and in our very social being, we are concerned not only that justice shall be done, but that every person concerned shall see that justice has been done. Too often we hear from constituents of cases where Ministers make decisions and where it is difficult to convey to the people affected all the information that the Ministers have in enabling them to arrive at those decisions.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North is concerned with an almost inalienable principle of a democratic society; that anyone affected by a planning decision—and the Minister has said that we are to be subject to a great deal more planning and that we are becoming a centrally planned society—shall have at his disposal all the information which has been presented to the Minister and upon which the Minister has made his decision. That seems to me to be the inalienable right of every citizen. If this trend of central planning continues—and I have no objection to it—every citizen should have this right.
    I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North in the Amendment, because, looking at the country's historical background, this is a basic and fundamental right of every citizen who is subject to central Government planning. Everyone concerned should know why the Government have made a decision and why there is no alternative to the action being taken.
    Mr. Willey: I do not think that we should lightly part from this discussion. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows that there is a good deal of anxiety about this matter now and there is a general feeling that the Government have been dodging the implications of the Franks Report. Many people who previously were concerned about the matter, under the present Administration, be it said, are again anxious and concerned.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said something which was quite remarkable. He told us that his right hon. Friend and his predecessors had on previous occasions made this very provision in other Acts of Parliament. If I remember aright, we tried it in Standing Committee in this very Measure. The precedents

    319
    to which he has referred arose almost without exception from Amendments which we on this side moved to the Measures to which he referred. The safeguards were put in at the instance of the Opposition. Time after time in Standing Committee on Bills such as this I have said that what disturbs me is that steps to provide for safeguards have to come from the Opposition. After we raise the matter, the Government give way and accept what we suggest. I would much rather the Government of their own initiative provided for these straightforward safeguards recommended by the Franks Committee. It has not been done.
    I concede that the Government may be in difficulty because the Minister and his predecessors have accepted Amendments and, by virtue of accepting them, they appear now more virtuous than other Ministers who have got legislation through, perhaps, without such Amendments being moved. Bills passed in recent years have varied very much in the way that these provisions have been dealt with. But that is a serious reflection on the Government. It is for the Government and for the Parliamentary draftsmen on instructions from the Government to ensure that safeguards are laid down in all legislation providing for procedures such as this. It ought to be standard form, but it is not.
    In a wheedling, pleading sort of way, the Parliamentary Secretary says, "Please do not press this Amendment. The Lord Chancellor is considering the matter." I say quite frankly that we are not very impressed by the Lord Chancellor's consideration of these matters. We are not willing to leave the safeguard provided for in this way. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment, we shall have no alternative but to divide the House on it. It ought to be accepted. The very fact that similar provision has been made in previous legislation on agricultural matters serves only to reinforce the argument that it should be accepted here. Why should an exception be made? There is no case whatever for an exception here, and we insist that the Amendment be accepted. Otherwise, we shall show our disapproval of the Government's attitude by going into the Division Lobby.
    Mr. J. B. Symonds: I support the Amendment. Taking the matter as it stands, the Minister has gone so far at least as to give the person concerned the opportunity to appear, but when he does appear he has nothing to go on. We say that when he is requested to attend he should have the information so that he may advance a reasonable case.
    The Minister has told us that this is something embodied in a comprehensive standard to be applied generally by the Lord Chancellor. This operates at the moment in other inquiries. I know from past experience that representatives concerned in the inquiry have had copies of objections placed in their possession. I fail to see why the Minister cannot embody in the Bill the privilege which is extended in other legislation. As the Minister has gone so far by agreeing that the person concerned should be present at the inquiry, let him have the information that makes the case better and makes a man feel that he has something on which he can act.
    Mr. Vane: There is nothing between both sides of the Committee concerning our desire to give a man the safeguards to which we think he is entitled. The only difference between us concerns the best way in which we should do it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and I have blood of the Long Parliament in our veins. Neither of us wishes to deny anyone a proper safeguard for which no doubt our forebears fought. The question is whether the Amendment is the best way to carry out the desire which we all have. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we cannot put every administrative provision into every statute, otherwise all statutes would be inordinately long. I suggest that as the Lord Chancellor is considering drafting a new code in which it is intended to include this proposal because it is normal practice today, it seems more appropriate that we should make a code like that apply to statutes of this sort rather than to every statute and that we should not repeat the details every time.
    On the other hand, hon. Members may say that in a provision of the sort suggested in the Amendment should appear in every statute in which reference is

    321
    made to an inquiry. I understand that the Amendment does not covet both forms of inquiry to which reference has been made, and I presume that hon. Members wish the safeguard to apply both to public inquiries and to private hearings by a person appointed by the Minister.
    I suggest that hon. Members opposite should consider this matter again and that they should not press the Amendment. There is another place. If hon. Members opposite think that they can improve on the Amendment, no doubt they will move another one. Meantime, if it seems to us on this side that the Clause would make a better balance with the rest of the Bill if an Amendment such as this were inserted, we will consider the matter again. I cannot give a particular assurance, but I suggest that hon. Members opposite should look at the Amendment again. We will look at it again. I therefore hope that, in that spirit, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment rather than press it to a Division.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: I am surprised at the reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He says that we should do nothing about this matter and that we should leave it to the Lord Chancellor. We have heard about the Lord Chancellor drafting a code in another place. We are not certain whether it will be drafted. There has been no announcement about it and we are not certain about the details of it.
    We are here dealing with specific legislation. We in this House have certain responsibilities. If we want to improve the Bill and to provide safeguards, we can do so simply by accepting the Amendment. I should like to hear the view of the hon. Members for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). I am sure that they have sympathy with our point of view on this very important matter.
    I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has the blood of the Long Parliament in him. Coming from the same county, I know that his ancestors were very active. I only wish that he was as radical as they were. The hon. Gentleman has retreated. Here, on an important Bill affecting drainage law, we are safeguarding the rights of citizens to have available to them all the full
    322
    machinery of the law to help them to make necessary objections and the rest and, above all, for them to resist bureaucratic action.
    8.45 p.m.
    I should have thought that hon. Members opposite, who used to rail against Labour Ministers during the period when a Labour Government were in power because, it was said, we were creating a vast State bureaucracy, would now, in the spirit of the Franks Committee, sympathetically support our Amendment. We are not satisfied with the reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We are afraid that he is passing the question to somebody else outside and that he is failing to accept the responsibilities—
    Mr. Vane: The Amendment as drafted does not cover both forms of inquiry referred to in the Clause. I was suggesting that if the hon. Member wanted to press it, he should do so on another occasion after he had had time to put it right.
    Mr. Peart: I am sorry that a Law Officer is not present. The sensible course would be to accept the Amendment and to improve it in another place.
    Mr. Vane Mr. Vane indicated dissent.
    Mr. Peart: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary thinks otherwise. Why cannot it be done? Why not accept the Amendment and improve it in another place? Let us take the first step now. We do not want this vague and nebulous approach which has been suggested of leaving it to the Lord Chancellor to bring in a new code which would apply not only to drainage law, but to other legislation. We are concerned here with drainage law. We can amend the Bill now and improve it later. The Minister can do that in another place if he wishes. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept the advice—as, I am certain, they will—of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and press the Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. Bence: I hope that the Committee will forgive me in rising again, but I must answer the remarks made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member has already spoken to the Amendment?
    Mr. Bence: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Only one speech is permissible, except with the permission of the House.
    Mr. Bence: May I, then, ask your per mission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to throw some questions to the hon. Gentleman in view of some of his remarks regarding the Long Parliament—
    Several Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Objection being taken, the hon. Member is not at liberty to speak twice.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I should like to ask the Minister why this simple Amendment is being referred to the Lord Chancellor, a high legal authority, when it appears clear to me that it is based solely on common sense. I suggest that the Minister is making a mountain out of a molehill.
    Mr. Willey: I wonder whether I may put a question to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who, I believe, has made a false point. He has said that the Amendment is limited and that the Government would like to do better and to make this provision apply both to public inquiries and to an inquiry held by a person appointed by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Lord Chancellor is considering the question of general rules. Obviously, they would apply to public inquiries. Whether they would apply to a person appointed by the Minister is another matter.
    I am particularly concerned with an inquiry of this character when, to use the words of the Clause, it is
    "to…give the authority and the persons by whom the objections are made an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose."
    There is nothing worse than that a Minister should appoint a person to hold an inquiry and then say to the authority or to the objectors, "I have appointed a person to hold an inquiry. You do not know what that person reported, but I have now decided against you". The whole purpose of having a person to hold an inquiry, hear objections and allow an opportunity for people to be heard is that the report of such a person should not only go to the Minister but should be available, otherwise there is
    324
    a good deal of legitimate suspicion of the way Ministers behave. There is too much evidence now that Ministers are disregarding such advice and seeking advice elsewhere: in fact, the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend.
    Although I think that this is a matter for which we ought to make provision, if the Government generously say that they will also make provision for a public inquiry under this Clause, they can do it in another place. But, if they do not accept the Amendment, we have no assurance that they will propose an Amendment in another place. We want an opportunity to look again at this matter. This would be in tune with the general argument that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary first advanced. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we insist upon recognition of the recommendations of the Franks Committee here. If he is not willing to accept the present Amendment we shall regard him as resisting that proposal.
    I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, but if he will not he is responsible for putting us in this predicament, because we have no alternative but to divide the House on the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), if he is concerned about these matters, will acknowledge that he knows as well as I do, because he has been in many of these Standing Committees, that this point is accepted by the Government only when it is raised by the Opposition.
    I apologise that we are raising this matter on Report. We ought to have raised it in Committee, as we did on another Clause. This was an oversight. There is more limited discussion on Report. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary says that the Government do not want to accept the Amendment, but there is a long list of precedents behind him, prompted and instigated by the Opposition and accepted by the Government. We insist therefore that this is accepted by the Government. If it is not, we regard it as a departure from the Government's acquiescence at any rate in the recommendations of the Franks Committee.
    We have every reason to be suspicious of the Government's motives. The Amendment would make clear that when the Minister appoints a person to hear objectors his report should be made

    325
    available. If, on this third appeal, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not give way, we shall have no alternative but to divide the House.
    Mr. Vane: I cannot be responsible for the suspicions of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). [Interruption.] May I speak by leave of the House?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rule is that the Minister in charge is allowed to speak more than once.
    Mr. Vane: I give the hon. Member for Sunderland, North the assurance that the proposed rules will apply to both forms of inquiry and that our object is that those concerned shall have the information. The Amendment does not provide for this. I cannot advise the House to accept an Amendment which does not achieve the purpose that we all want when there is another and a better way of achieving it. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    I understand that the hon. Member wants to make sure that everybody realises that he attaches importance to the principle behind the Amendment, but so do we. We want to achieve the same thing. I cannot go further than to say that we want the proposed rules to apply to both inquiries, and I cannot say more than that the Amendment does not provide safeguards for the achievement of the purpose that we all want.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I would not have risen had it not been for the way in which hon. Members opposite prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) from speaking again. I must say to them that if they behave in such a discourteous manner they cannot expect to expedite the proceedings on this Bill.
    I have seldom heard a more feeble explanation than that given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. This Amendment is one which anybody can understand. It simply proposes that the agrieved person, the person who makes the objection, should be given a copy of the report made to the Minister. What possible objection can there be to that? To start with, the Parliamentary Secre-
    326
    tary said that he agreed with this, that he was entirely in favour of it. But he added that the Government did not want to write it into the Bill but wished to rely instead on some general rules which are to be made at some indefinite time in the future covering several kinds of such cases.
    He did not tell us what he meant by that. When are these rules to be made? Are they to be embodied in legislation? Is there to be a new Bill? Is it to be introduced in this Parliament? Or is this to be merely some vague instruction to civil servants about what they are to do?
    The Parliamentary Secretary then changed his ground. He moved from that excuse to another—that this Amendment would not do what was intended, that it would not cover both types of inquiry. That may be so, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said so forcefully, if it does not go as far as the Government wish, there is no reason why they should not put the matter right in another place. But to expect us to believe, on the excuse that there may be at some time in the future some rules to protect individuals in some particular cases, that we should not put this Amendment in the Bill is rather ridiculous. It is the usual sort of bureaucratic excuse—"Do not let us spoil our beautiful Bill by introducing too many safeguards for the individual."
    The Parliamentary Secretary said at one point that if we put in all these safeguards the Bill would become intolerably long. On the same argument, one should leave all the safeguards out. He also argued that if such safeguards were to be laid down in the Bill they would affect many previous Acts of Parliament. What is wrong with that? When are the rules to be introduced? What is to be the position meanwhile?
    I have seldom heard a more feeble excuse put forward by a Minister on behalf of bureaucracy for withholding from the individual the rights to which he is entitled. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a better argument than he has given so far. The matter cannot be left here in view of the case which everyone is now discussing, that of the chalk pit in Essex, which is being considered by the Lord Chancellor

    327
    and being discussed by him and the Chairman of the Committees on Tribunals.
    We are all deeply conscious of the dangers which at present threaten individuals in dealing with bureaucracy. It is not only extraordinarily unconvincing, but politically singularly inapt for the junior Minister to have rejected the Amendment. The Amendment cannot do any harm. At its very worst, it may not be wholly adequate. If he finds that is so, then he can easily have an Amendment moved in another place, and if, on examination, that Amendment seems an improvement, we should not raise any objection when it was brought back to us from another place.
    Mr. Peart: Will the Minister of Agriculture himself now intervene? He has been here and has had consultations, which we accept must take place between Ministers and their staffs behind them. We should hear what he himself has to say.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will not make another speech, because that would not be in order. He may just ask a question.
    Mr. Peart: I was seeking to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why his right hon. Friend does not intervene. The right hon. Gentleman has made an appearance. After all, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has put our point of view very forcibly. Surely we can have the courtesy of a reply from the right hon. Gentleman? Or will the Parliamentary Secretary make another intervention? Will he answer the questions raised?
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is putting me in a great difficulty. He is not allowed to make a second speech.
    Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think the Minister is putting us in difficulty if we are not to be allowed to press him to answer the very proper questions which have been put.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that entitles me to go beyond the rules
    328
    of debate, which are that only one speech on an Amendment may be made by an hon. Member.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am not making another speech, but now that the Minister has come in—and we are very glad to see him here—I hope that he will give further thought to this Amendment. It is an Amendment of some consequence involving protection for the individual. I am sure that his sympathies are with the individual. We have been told that there is to be a new set of rules and that that is the main reason for not accepting the Amendment. I have to put this to the Minister because he was not here when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary when the new set of rules will come into operation, what regulations there will be, and other questions.
    The Minister has now been sent for and has come to the Front Bench. We hope very much that when the little conversation in which he is now engaged has been completed he will tell us that the Government will accept the Amendment. As I said earlier, it could not possibly do any harm.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: As a Scottish Member with English ancestry, I am always delighted to come to the rescue of my English colleagues in the House. It is obvious that the Minister is anxious to be courteous to the House, to reply to the very important points made on the Amendment, and also to reply to the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
    The request made to the Minister has not been very demanding. It is a simple request that, in view of the debate which has taken place on this Amendment, he should give an undertaking that he will think this matter over again and, in the light of the arguments advanced from this side of the House, he will do something about it when the Bill goes to another place. That is not asking very much of the Minister. If he wants to play fair by this House and by the people who are to be affected by these drainage schemes, the least he should do is to consider this matter again.
    All the Amendment asks is that
    "a copy of the report to the Minister of the person so appointed shall be supplied…to the persons by whom the objections are made."

    329
    All we are asking is that the persons concerned should be informed of what has happened to their objections and why their objections have been overruled. In a country like this where we proclaim the principles of democracy, the least that should be done is to take the people into confidence and to tell them why their grievances or objections should be rejected and why the Government, or the board, will proceed with a scheme in spite of objections made to it.
    This is not a dictatorship where the rights of the people can be overridden by pretending to have an inquiry and not telling them of the result; this is a democracy. I remember the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) asking us to "trust the people". That was his great cry, and it was a very good cry. Surely, the Minister is not going to suggest anything less than his right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford used to suggest. I think that the Minister could quite well trust the people, and be prepared to take them into his confidence where these decisions and reports are concerned. This is not a revolutionary matter. It must be a very feeble Government that expects to be toppled and tumbled to the ground because people are told why their requests cannot be granted.
    I can see a very serious look on the Minister's face, and I think that he realises that he has made a bit of a mistake about this. I believe that he is rather anxious, and when he has finished his consultations, we should be delighted to have his verdict on the Amendment. I hope that he will promise that he will do something about this in another place. I do not know whether he is ready to get up, but I do not want to filibuster. The last thing I want to do is to waste the time of the House, because we have important business to follow, and, as usual, Scottish business is at the tail end. I am anxious to get to that business, and therefore do not want to delay the House. If the Minister is now prepared to accept the request made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I am quite prepared to sit down so that he can give us the explanation.
    Mr. Denys Bullard: I very much hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press this matter to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why
    330
    not?"] I think there is a great deal in all the points which they have made, but I do ask them to consider the one aspect of drainage which this section of the Bill covers. This deals with schemes for small areas to be drained, and when we hear of all these terrible objections that are to be raised and will have to be heard, with reports referred back, we should remember that the greatest harm that will come to the people who are concerned is that their land will be drained. It seems to me that most of them will not be subject to any hardship, or otherwise the schemes would not be promoted.
    There are very important questions of principle involved here, but I do not think this is a stage in the discussion of the Bill at which objections should be taken to the point of dividing the House. A great deal has been said about having blood in one's veins belonging to the Long Parliament. I come from the Fen district, where most of the troubles of that time arose. I would say that I was pretty well steeped in the history of that area, and that is why yesterday I spent some time resisting the entrance of a peer into this House, but that is by the way.
    I hope that hon. Members opposite will take a different view of this matter, which is to the benefit of small areas, because this reference back might delay the setting up of a scheme, which may in any case prove rather difficult, and I hope that they will accept the assurance given by my right hon. Friend and not press the matter to a Division.
    Mr. D. Jones: On a point of order. I asked a question why a simple matter of this character should be referred to the Lord Chancellor, and I have not yet had a reply, to which I feel I am entitled.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair to deal with.
    Mr. Soames: I agree very much with the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) that this is a matter which, we hope, will be of great benefit to a large number of people. These are schemes for the drainage of small areas, and the only harm that could come to them, as my hon. Friend has said, is that their land will be drained. It will be a matter of considerable benefit to them as a whole.
    Mr. Willey: How on earth will the disclosure of the report made by a person appointed by the right hon. Gentleman affect drainage? All we want to know is the character of the report which is made to him by the person whom he appoints. That is all.
    Mr. Soames: I am not saying it affects the drainage. All we are seeking to do—and this is the point I am making—
    Mr. Willey: The Minister is advancing the most dangerous of all arguments—the argument of expediency. He says "Because we are concerned with drainage"—and everyone wants to improve drainage—"why should I reveal a report presented to me by a person whom I have appointed?" Any Minister can argue that. The whole argument made on civil liberties is that the individual has his rights against the Executive.
    Mr. Soames: I was coming to that; it is the main point put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has made perfectly clear to the House where we stand on this. The rules which will control this matter are to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and we do not think it either right or necessary that the words in the Amendment should be written into the Bill. We believe ours to be the correct way of dealing with the probelm. We are not trying to avoid the problem; the only difference between the two sides of the House is as to the way in which it should be dealt with. We believe ours to be the right way, and I do not believe that there is anything that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. (Willey) can say to make me waiver in my view—
    Mr. Gaitskell: The rules are to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and we are trying to find out something about it. What rules? When are they to be made? Are they to be made in arbitrary fashion by one member of the Government? Is not Parliament to have any say in what the rules are to be? Should they not be made in legislative form? Can we not be told something about it?
    Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: I am alarmed by what the Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) have said. They say that this Clause refers to schemes for drainage of small areas and that small areas do not really matter. Why on earth should schemes for small areas not have the same consideration and the same protection of the law as schemes for big areas. The subsection that we are seeking to amend says that the scheme shall be promulgated and published, that those affected will have the opportunity of protesting against it, and that an inquiry shall be held. Our Amendment seeks to add:
    "and a copy of the report to the Minister of the person so appointed shall be supplied by the Minister to the persons by whom the objections are made."
    I recall the day not so many years ago when one of the present Minister's predecessors came to that Dispatch Box and resigned. In that case it happened to be a rich landowner whose interests were affected. Now, the present Minister says, "It is only a small drainage area. The people there should really not be considered. Why should they have the opportunity of questioning whatever in the wisdom of the Ministry is thought good for them?" That is an abominable attitude.
    9.15 p.m.
    As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, we are being asked to agree that future decisions shall be governed by some rules or other. Are we in this day and generation to pass to the Minister as vague a power as that? I hope that we will not. I hope that even hon. Members opposite, who claim in their public speeches to be greatly concerned about the rights of individual landowners, will stand up for the small farmer.
    I know that the Minister is being assailed by the small farmers of every county on one thing or another, and I can promise him that if he refuses the people concerned with small drainage schemes in Cornwall the right for which we are now asking, he will be in for a rough time.
    Why should those who have made objections at a public inquiry, often going to great expense to get their case professionally prepared and presented, not know what arguments were placed

    333
    before the Minister by the Inspector? This is a kind of secret police when the inspector of the Ministry hears an inquiry and then the people who have complained are not able to hear what the Minister's representative has said to the Minister. We are entitled to know, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will support this simple and clear Amendment.
    Mr. George Brown: I rise for two reasons, partly because this is my old Department, in the days when things were apparently done better than they now are, and partly because this is a time when the issues of civil liberties and the rights of the individual in connection with the operation of the Ministry of Agriculture and town and country planning departments are very much in the public mind.
    We cannot allow this provision to go by on the basis of the totally inadequate defence put up by the Minister. Speaking as a member of the old Parliamentary Secretary's union, I was rather impressed when the Minister turned to the Parliamentary Secretary and said, "My hon. Friend has made it clear and"—by implication—"there is nothing more for me, the Minister, to say." That is a reversal of the doctrine which applied in my day.
    The Minister gave us no answer. When the Bill was in Committee, his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accepted an Amendment in page 4, line 38. It is painfully clear that the Minister is far from well-briefed on the subject. In column 192 in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee he will see that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) moved an Amendment in page 4, line 38, that certain words should be left out and other words inserted. The words to be inserted were that the Ministers should
    "afford such persons"—
    those being the persons appealing—
    "an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose and shall consider the report of the person so appointed…"
    The Parliamentary Secretary then said:
    "I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th December, 1960; c. 192.]
    334
    The Amendment we have tabled simply carries through to fruition the Amendment which the Minister had great pleasure in accepting in Committee upstairs. If we are to give people the opportunity to appeal and to be heard, and we are to receive a report, the obvious corrolary to that procedure, if we are to maintain the rights of individuals, is that the individual should know what the man who heard the appeal reported to the Minister.
    I am sure that the Minister keeps up to date, if not with his reading of Standing Committee Reports—on which I sympathise with him—with his reading of The Times. The Times leader this morning, being a continuation of several, makes the point out of the chalk pit inquiry that Ministers who say: "We will have an inquiry. We may then be free to do what we like about it behind your back", are not acting in accord with the spirit of the Act under which they hold the inquiry.
    This must be very clear. It is no use the Minister trying to fob us off with a couple of lines given to him by his advisers that the rules will be made by the Lord Chancellor. This is not good enough for Parliament. It was not even good enough for The Times this morning because it said that this Lord Chancellor judging by what he said yesterday cannot really be trusted on this.
    If the Minister wants to enter into a long battle, this is the point at which he can do it. My right hon. Friend and I have come here because we on this side believe that on this issue, in the light of what has happened in the chalk pit case, we must dig our toes in and stand firm. And we will stand firm. If the Minister wishes it, a long time will be spent on that issue. I do not think the Minister wants that. I know him to be a man who would wish not only that things would appear to be right but would in fact be right. To make them right, we must give the person who is allowed to appeal and on whom a report is to be received the right to know what was said.
    Without making heavy weather of this and holding up the debate for a long time, I ask the Minister to give us an assurance on this point. He cannot do himself any harm. There cannot have been a D-notice forbidding him to

    335
    discuss this. He must be free to say that he will do this in respect of the Land Drainage Bill, and I beg him to do it.
    I hope that he will do this even though he has been so vigorously instructed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I am touched by this new relationship whereby the Joint Parliamentary Secretary instructs the Minister. In my sixteen years in the House I have never known a situation where a Parliamentary Secretary has told a Minister what to do. It is wonderful. I would have been all for it in the old days. But, having moved on, I am not so sure that I am all for it now. I beg the Minister to take personal responsibility here.
    I ask the Minister to remember that we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of small men. We are not dealing with an industry of big men who can get expert advice and look after themselves. By the long overdue and desirable Amendments which the Minister is making to the Bill we are bringing this down to small people. As we are dealing with small people, it is important that we should go out of our way to make them feel absolutely comfortable, certain, and sure.
    The Amendment is essential for two reasons. First, to give effect to the Amendment which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary accepted in Committee upstairs. Secondly, to assure small people that justice will be done to them, and that it will be seen to be done. I therefore beg the Minister to ask leave of the House to address us again. It will save a lot of time and trouble if he accepts the Amendment and thereby assures everybody affected that they will know what is being done behind closed doors and that there will be no more chalk pit cases.
    Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for intervening in the debate, but I am beginning to wonder why the right hon. Gentleman took the trouble to do so. He has said no more than was said by his hon. Friend, and he made it clear that he did not know the background of the Amendment or much about the regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to know the topical nature of this Amendment.
    336
    I do not know whether he has had an opportunity yet to read the debate which took place yesterday in another place on the subject of the chalk pit case. One thing emerged from it, and that is that it is abundantly clear that a good deal needs to be done to our procedure in connection with public inquiries of this kind and to the process of appeals from Ministerial decisions on public inquiries before the individual's rights can be reasonably safeguarded. I do not suggest for a moment that acceptance of the Amendment would allay all the anxieties which have properly and rightly been aroused by the chalk pit case. But it is a modest step in that direction.
    I cannot understand how the Minister can possibly object to the inclusion in the Bill of a requirement that he should furnish the people affected by a public inquiry with a copy of his inspector's report. This, I should have thought, was the least any person affected by one of these schemes could reasonably ask. If the Minister will take a little time off when this debate is finished to read the debate on the chalk pit case in another place, he will realise that it is not an academic matter. It is a matter where individual rights against the Executive are deeply concerned. There is no doubt that the anxiety about the decision in that case, and the apparently arbitrary decision of the Minister riding roughshod over the rights of the individual whose property and amenities were seriously affected by the decision, is very serious.
    I hope that the Minister has noted the reaction of the Press to this case. The Government have not been having a very good Press lately and they had a peculiarly bad one on the chalk pit case. I hope that the Minister will have had time to think again and will tell the House that, without prejudice to any regulations or rules that the Lord Chancellor may make or any changes there may be in the procedure relating to public inquiries and appeals, he will accept this extremely modest request, for the many good reasons and the one comparatively trivial reason mentioned by my hon. Friend, and then he will save himself a lot of trouble.
    Mr. Bruce Millan: I was completely astonished by the inadequacy of the reply made by the Minister to the points put to him. This

    337
    is a fundamental issue of principle although the point is a very simple one. There seam no reason why the Minister should not give in on this matter. It appears that he came inadequately prepared and was not properly briefed on the point we put to him. But as a result of the discussion we have had the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to get further information about this, and I think that by this time he will appreciate the seriousness with which hon. Members on this side of the House regard this matter.
    It may be due to my inexperience but I was baffled by what the Minister said about the Lord Chancellor's rules and about the question of regulations. If one looks at the Clause as a whole one finds in subsection (6), for example, that there is provision that regarding notices to people who are liable to be affected by the scheme, the Minister may, by regulations made by Statutory Instruments, prescribe the notice which may be given.
    9.30 p.m.
    There is a definite reference in subsection (6) to regulations made by Statutory Instrument and, in subsection (11), there is another definite and specific reference to a Statutory Instrument which can be made varying the limits imposed by paragraph (c) of subsection (4).
    It seems extraordinary that in this Clause there are two references to Statutory Instruments. If it was the Government's original intention to introduce regulations under subsection (7), why should they not have stated that in subsection (7) itself?
    I find it completely baffling that there should be these two references, yet no reference at all in subsection (7). Therefore, we are entitled to expect a further explanation from the Minister—something beyond the completely inadequate explanation he has already given. We require more details about the Lord Chancellor's rules, which are apparently to be made, and also about the details, which are apparently to be covered by some sort of Statutory Instrument or regulations which are to be subject to the negative procedure.
    The Minister has been caught on the wrong foot. He has had ample opportunity to consider all the implications.
    338
    We on this side of the House treat this as an important matter, and I hope, even now, that the Minister will ask leave to speak again and that he will say that he accepts this reasonable but extremely important Amendment.
    Mr. Charles A. Howell: I have every sympathy with the Minister. He must have been very disappointed to have returned to the House when he did, because he seems to have put the cat among the pigeons. I feel sorry for him in another way. It is difficult for the skipper of a ship to come back on deck after his dinner, only to find that his first officer has got him into troubled waters.
    Unfortunately, the Minister cannot be in two places at once and it is rather difficult for him—in a conversation with the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench—to try to listen to speeches from this side of the House, and, at the same time, to try to get the gist of what has been said during his absence. I can assure the Minister that the Parliamentary Secretary told hon. Members that there was very little difference between what we want on this side of the House and what the Minister had left as a brief, for I can only assume that the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking from a brief.
    Let me inform the Minister that the Parliamentary Secretary has told hon. Members that this Amendment is very good, but that it does not go quite far enough. The hon. Gentleman said that in another place or in another way, what we want can be got in another direction. In other words, this is only half the loaf and the Parliamentary Secretary wants to give us the whole of the loaf.
    But the people of the country have different ideas on the types of loaves they like—and this is one loaf hon. Members on this side of the House do not like. Why? It is simply because if there is one thing that this Government will go down in history as being, it will be as the Government who has treated Parliament with the greatest contempt that any Government has ever shown. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that seriously and with due consideration. They are trying—and with their great majority, they are executing—the work of this Parliament by Orders in

    339
    Council, which can only be prayed against. The Minister, if I may say so, committed a cardinal sin when he came to that box a few moments ago and told us that the Lord Chancellor would do what we want by way of an Order in Council, which can be negatived. That is not the way I want to see Parliament operate. I want Parliament to have the right to amend various proposals. Here, we are trying to amend something, not negative it.
    We are told that the Lord Chancellor will, in the near future, do something about it. We never know how near the near future is. I remember the Prime Minister once telling us, after he was asked when the near future would be, that it was not a long time off, it was not tomorrow, but it was the near future. We have not even been told when the Lord Chancellor will prepare the Order. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked whether it would be done in this Parliament. We had no reply.
    Apparently, when the Lord Chancellor decides on what he intends to do, he will have to take advice from all sorts of people, and this may take months and months. If we complain in the House about delay in the making of the Order, the Minister will tell us that he has so many interests to consult that the matter must not be rushed. After the Lord Chancellor has that advice and an Order is laid, all we can do, if we do not like it, is to pray against it and try to have it negatived. We cannot amend it in the smallest way. Even if we like the greater part of it and dislike only a small part, we shall not be able to change the small part we dislike. The only course open to us is to negative the whole thing.
    In my view, Orders in Council which can only be prayed against and negatived should be used only in very carefully considered circumstances and but rarely. They should be the exception rather than the rule. This is the problem which the Government are in; they are, day after day, working by Order in Council. It is not the exception to the rule; it is becoming the rule.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, speaking from the brief which was left to him, said that there is very little between us. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-
    340
    land, North (Mr. Willey) asked him to come that little way with us or, otherwise, we should be forced to divide against the Government. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, there is no difference between the Government's intention and our Amendment. The only thing is that the Government want to go a little further. Let them do that. Let us not take from the House of Commons its right to make the legislation for the country. Let us have the Amendment as far as it goes, and then the right hon. Gentleman can say in good faith that, having accepted the Amendment, he is prepared to go further and give more. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, if it comes back from another place in an amended form improving on the Amendment as it leaves here, we shall welcome that. He can have that assurance.
    As a result of the Minister having put the cat among the pigeons, we are now putting up the shutters. That is what it amounts to. The Minister should remember that. If the Parliamentary Secretary had been reasonable enough to accept our very reasonable Amendment, he could have finished with this matter three-quarters of an hour ago. I hope that the Minister will not later on accuse us on these benches of being responsible for keeping the Bill before the House longer than necessary. We could have gone a lot further but for this matter which, though small, is extremely important in the view of hon. Members on this side of the House.
    Where the importance of an inquiry is such that the Minister has to take advice, the small man ought to be given the information when his case is turned down. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, the rich man, the big landowner, can have legal advice; he can afford the best advice that money can buy. I do not know whether there are any poor farmers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am pleased that hon. Members opposite go with me that far. The small farmer who has his case turned down should be told the reasons. It is only right and just that he should be told why his application has been rejected.
    It is not good enough these days to tell someone, "Your application has been rejected, but you cannot be told the reason why". All that we are asking

    341
    is that people should be given the reason for its rejection so that they can have the satisfaction, if satisfaction can be obtained in that way, of knowing exactly what advice the Minister has received which has resulted in the application being rejected. This is fundamental in British justice. Anyone convicted in the courts at least knows the evidence which has been given against him. We are here concerned with a form of court, although it is only an inquiry. People have the fundamental right to know on what grounds a tribunal has turned down their application and what evidence has been submitted.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Mr. Hayman) made out an exceptionally good case. If a drainage scheme were turned down in his area and if the appellant knew the grounds for its rejection and the evidence which had been submitted against him, I am convinced that he would contact my hon. Friend who would raise the matter in the House, even if he had to wait for an Adjournment debate. At least people have the opportunity to raise the matter which is denied them under the Bill unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment.
    It is not good enough to say, "Do not let Parliament bother about the regulations. Let the Lord Chancellor do it." Frankly, although I do not think that there will be much land drainage done in my constituency, which is mainly residential and industrial there is a bounden duty—
    Mr. G. Brown: It affects my constituency.
    Mr. Howell: I know, because I have to wade through some of the floods in my right hon. Friend's constituency at times. It is the right of hon. Members to determine what legislation we want and not to have to hand matters over to the Lord Chancellor who, by his whim, can move an Order which can only be prayed against and in no way amended.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: It is extremely difficult to make a speech at this stage of the debate without falling into the trap of reiterating what has already been said. However, I think it is essential that those of
    342
    us who are affected by this matter and charged with the responsibility of looking after the interests of our constituents should add our voice to the plea which has been made to the Minister.
    I can appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's dilemma. Having once turned down our appeals, it is very difficult for the Minister to change his mind. I do not often speak very highly of Ministers. It is not often that I have cause to do so. However, in my relationships with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I must say that when I have had occasion to write to him about matters affecting my constituents he has been very reasonable. When I have seen him in the House he has always had the courage to face the problems with which he is confronted. I hope that on this occasion he will evidence the qualities for which I give him full credit.
    We are here dealing with a fundamental issue as to whether this House shall be the custodians of the liberty of the citizen. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can advance any argument seeking to deny the small farmer having full knowledge of the reasons why a scheme has been either accepted or rejected. It has already been said that development of the trend to give Ministers power by Order and by permissive legislation is becoming an abuse of democratic government.
    9.45 p.m.
    If in examining the position the Minister would think for a moment and not rely too much upon the advice that is forthcoming from other quarters, if he would simply consider the question of the right of the individual and exercise his other known qualities, I see no reason why he should not emerge with dignity. There is nothing undignified in having taken a position and by force of argument being proved to have taken the wrong decision and in consequence of that argument adopting an entirely different stand. If the Minister would now say that he is more concerned about the liberty of the individual than his own personal dignity, he would add to his reputation.
    Mr. Soames: The general impression which hon. Members opposite seem to be trying to give on this issue is that we are holding back reports of inquiries from the individuals concerned. That

    343
    is not the fact. It has always been the policy and principle within my Department that when a matter has been considered by an inquiry of the type in question, if the person concerned wishes to have a report of the inquiry it is given to him. That has been the practice even though it has not been written into any previous land drainage legislation, of which we have had plenty.
    This is not the only part of the Bill which provides for inquiries of this character. We have waited until Clause 27 for the point to be raised, although it could well have been raised earlier. In fact, an Amendment was moved in Committee on Clause 4 by the Opposition on the subject of inquiries, but it did not contain provision for the report to be circulated to the individual.
    Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 4, which is another point, namely, consultation where there is a clear Ministerial decision. Here there is a different position where the Minister appoints a person to hold an inquiry and presumably takes a quasi-judicial decision. It is in the second case that, in accordance with the Franks Committee recommendations, we are anxious that the report should be made available.
    I want the right hon. Gentleman to deal with another point. We have been on Recommital and Report for a considerable time. These Amendments were put down early in February. The Government have had every opportunity to amend this matter. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that this provision did not go far enough. Why have the Government not amended it? The Minister has been consulting his advisers. I ask him to ignore their advice. They are not Parliamentarians. They produce reasons "a", "b", "c", "d", and will go on to "z", but this is a Parliamentary point.
    Mr. Soames Mr. Soames rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Were the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to make another speech he would require the leave of the House. I am afraid that he cannot proceed when the Minister is seeking to resume the speech he was making.
    Mr. Willey: By leave of the House I hope to put the simple point to the right hon. Gentleman—whether the Government have considered a further amendment of this Amendment by extending it and whether they have considered, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman is arguing now, a similar Amendment which might be accepted on other Clauses.
    Mr. Soames: We have passed many of these Clauses. No Bill that has come before the House since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, has had incorporated in it the sort of phrase which the Amendment seeks to put into this Bill, because this has been dealt with in a general way, affecting all Bills and affecting all aspects of this matter when Ministerial inquiries are held, by the Lord Chancellor and the Council on Tribunals. That is the way in which it is being handled.
    Where this Bill is concerned, this is only one of a number of Clauses where the point arises. There are provisions in other Clauses for inquiries to be held, and it would be farcical to agree to have this sort of procedure written into the Bill in one Clause and not to have it written into the Bill in other Clauses which aim at the same purpose. What my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said to the House earlier was that we would consider between now and the Bill going to another place the question of the amendment of this Clause.
    I am satisfied that that is not sufficient, inasmuch as there are other Clauses which are affected by the same principles. But what we want to do, and what we will do, is to consider between now and the Bill going to another place whether the way to do this would be to add an extra Clause so that where Ministerial inquiries are affected by the Bill the report should be sent back given to the person concerned, as of course it has been and is now being. We will consider that as opposed to it being covered by the Lord Chancellor's regulations. I cannot give the House an assurance that this Clause will be put down, but I assure hon. and right hon. Members that we will consider it.
    Mr. G. Brown: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that he cannot give the House an assurance but that "We will consider it"? I understood him to say that the Amendment

    345
    was not the technically right thing to do. I do not quite accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman has better advice than is available to us. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he is sure that he will find a better way of doing this we will accept that assurance. Is he giving an assurance that in some form or other this matter will be covered be-for the Bill is finally finished with?
    Mr. Soames: What I am saying is that we will give consideration, which has not hitherto been given, between now and when this Bill goes to another place, about whether it should be incorporated in a new Clause in the Bill.
    Sir Frank Soskice: Before the right hon. Gentleman finally concludes his observations, if he has not already done so, I want to put to him a simple question which has a bearing on the matter. I am sure that he has considered the implications of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958. I am sure that he is fully aware that that Act was passed in consequence of the strong feeling voiced by the Franks Committee that the general situation in the holding of inquiries was in an extremely unsatisfactory state.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is bound by the obligations set out in Section 12 of that Act. No doubt he has considered it. If he has not got his finger-tips on it at the moment, I shall remind him that the Act requires that a Minister—I see that he is looking towards his advisers, so I will slow down until he gets his reply ready—must give his reasons for a decision taken by him following a statutory inquiry
    "…or taken by him in a case in which a person concerned could (whether by objecting or otherwise) have required the holding…of a statutory inquiry".
    If he is bound by the provisions of that Section to give his reasons, does not he concede that it is not going very much further to require that a copy of the report upon which he has based his reasons should be furnished to those who put up objections? Surely he realises the commonsense of that?
    I am conscious that he has said that he will consider this matter again, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has pressed him to give more than such an undertaking.
    346
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has already considered the matter. Will he, in the light of the consideration which I am putting, undertake that, being under an obligation to give his reasons, he will make them intelligible by making available to objectors the report upon which he based them?
    That is not an unreasonable request. It is easier to understand the reasons of a Minister, based on a report, if one knows the contents of that report. We are seeking, through this Amendment, to ensure that the person who has made objection will be able to know the report that the Minister has received and will, knowing the report, be in a position more easily to understand the Minister's reasons for the decision—reasons which, without the report, may be somewhat difficult to understand.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he has received information from his advisers, will tell us whether he is bound by Section 12, and, if he is, whether he realises that the arguments in support of this Amendment are irresistible. Even if he is not bound by Section 12, he is clearly within the spirit of the Franks Committee, which expressly made a number of recommendations in order to strengthen the position of persons such as the objectors envisaged by this Clause, who will want to know why their objections are brushed aside—if they are brushed aside—and on what evidence and reports the Minister is acting.
    Whether or not he is bound by Section 12, he should accept the spirit of the Amendment and undertake to incorporate it in the Bill, and should not merely consider whether he will or will not do so.
    Mr. Soames: I am not bound in this instance by Section 12 of the 1958 Act. Even if I were, the point is whether this should be written into each individual Bill as it comes before the House or whether it should be done by the Lord Chancellor's Regulations for Tribunals. That is the only point at issue. It is where that issue is concerned that I said that I would consider this matter between now and when the Bill reaches another place.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
    from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Redmayne.]
    The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 102.

    Division No. 164.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Balniel, Lord

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Partridge, E.

    Barlow, sir John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Barter, John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Percival, Ian

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pott, Percivall

    Bingham, R. M.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hendry, Forbes

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Pym, Francis

    Bossom, Clive

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hobson, John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Box, Donald

    Holland, Philip

    Rees, Hugh

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hollingworth, John

    Renton, David

    Braine, Bernard

    Holt, Arthur

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

    Hopkins, Alan

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Russell, Ronald

    Bryan, Paul

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

    Shaw, M.

    Buck, Antony

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Bullard, Denys

    Hughes-Young, Michael

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

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Smithers, Peter

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Jackson, John

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Channon, H. P. G.

    James, David

    Speir, Rupert

    Chataway, Christopher

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cooke, Robert

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Talbot, John E.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Tapsell, Peter

    Cordle, John

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Temple, John M.

    Costain, A. P.

    Kirk, Peter

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Coulson, J. M.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Leavey, J. A.

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Turner, Colin

    Curran, Charles

    Lindsay, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Dance, James

    Loveys, Walter H.

    vane, W. M. F.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    du Cann, Edward

    MacArthur, Ian

    Wade, Donald

    Duncan, Sir James

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Walder, David

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Walker, Peter

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maginnis, John E.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fell, Anthony

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Watts, James

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marshall, Douglas

    Whitelaw, William

    Fisher, Nigel

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Mawby, Ray

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gammans, Lady

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

    Wise, A. R.

    Gardner, Edward

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Goodhart, Philip

    Morrison, John

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Goodhew, Victor

    Noble, Michael

    Woollam, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Worsley, Marcus

    Grimond, J.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Peel.

    Gurden, Harold

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Collick, Percy

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fernyhough, E.

    Blackburn, F.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Finch, Harold

    Boardman, H.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Ginsburg, David

    Logan, David

    Robertson, J. (Paisley)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    McInnes, James

    Ross, William

    Grey, Charles

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mackie, John

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Small, William

    Hannan, William

    Millan, Bruce

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hayman, F. H.

    Milne, Edward J.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Monslow, Walter

    Steele, Thomas

    Hilton, A. V.

    Neal, Harold

    Symonds, J. B.

    Holman, Percy

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Owen, Will

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parker, John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Watkins, Tudor

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Peart, Frederick

    Willey, Frederick

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Pentland, Norman

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Jeger, George

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Probert, Arthur

    Woof, Robert

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Redhead, E. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lawson, George

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Mr. Charles Howell and

    Mr. McCann.

    LAND DRAINAGE BILL
    Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Soames: I was saying, when the Division took place, that I think it is well established on both sides of the House that we are both after the same thing. The argument is over the means with which we will achieve it. Whether we will achieve it by means of writing a Clause into this Bill or not, one thing is sure and that is that this Amendment is not the answer. It is therefore a question of putting in a new Clause which will refer to it across the whole Bill, or whether we should leave it to be done by the Lord Chancellor's regulations. As I understand it, since the 1959 Act, no Bill has yet been presented to the House which has had a Clause in it to handle it in that way, and so far it has been left to be done by the Lord Chancellor's regulations.
    I will give an undertaking to discuss this with my colleagues. I cannot definitely say that a new Clause will be put in to meet this point—that would create a precedent which goes much further than land drainage—but I shall consult my colleagues as to whether it would be better to put a Clause into the Bill as opposed to leaving the Lord Chancellor to make regulations. I do not know which will prove to be the better way of handling the question, but I will discuss it with my colleagues, and not just regard it as a matter for consideration
    350
    in the Department as to which may prove to be the better method.
    Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I wish that the Minister would be more forthright. An assurance that he will seek the best way of incorporating this into the Bill would meet all our requirements, but a mere assurance of discussion with the Lord Chancellor and others of his colleagues leaves us very cold. The Minister told us to dismiss completely from our minds any impression that he was trying to hold anything back, and added that whenever a person applied to the Department for the inspector's report, that report was always supplied.
    If that is so, why cannot the Minister be more forthcoming and say that he will provide in the Bill for the report to be supplied. He says that is already being done, so there can be no objection to inserting it in this Measure. To say that the matter has not been dealt with in this way previously does not alter the justification of our general requests.
    The Minister knows that I have been in consultation with his Department on drainage questions. I am satisfied with the way which his Ministry is dealing with them, but schemes like this could adversely affect the land of someone outside the immediate area of the scheme and the person affected will object. The Minister will hold an inquiry—surely the person affected is entitled to know, of right and not on sufferance, what recommendation the inspector makes to the Minister.

    351
    That is ordinary common justice. Whatever may have been the case with all the drainage Measures since 1929, it is not sufficient in 1961 to leave the Lord Chancellor to make such regulations as he may deem to be necessary. The Minister has agreed that the information has previously been supplied to objectors, and he must now concede that an objector has a right to it.
    10.15 p.m.
    The Minister has gone far from his original stand, after several consultations. We now ask him to go a little further. He is the Minister in charge of agriculture and he has admitted that there is justice in our request. Surely he will be courageous enough to say that an objector is entitled to see the inspector's report as a matter of right rather than as a matter of making an application. It is only common sense that past practice and precedent should prevail and should be enshrined in legislation. The Minister should take his courage in his hands and adopt a measure suitable for 1961 rather than for what happened forty or fifty years ago.
    The Minister is noted for his courage and we now ask him to take just this one further step. It is not a matter only of courage, but also of statesmanship and his determination to be the head of his own Ministry and to give justice to those who seek it. I hope that he will agree to discuss with us the type of Amendment which ought to be made so that the right can be enshrined in the Bill and not made dependent on regulations to be made at some time in the future.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: During the last ten years, we have seen a number of Ministers of Agriculture. They have been Lord Crathorne, Lord Amory, the present Minister of Labour, and now the right hon. Gentleman. If our appeal had been made to any of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors as it has been made tonight, I am sure that they would have conceded it. Every one of us with rural areas in his constituency is bound to be affected in more than one way if the matter is not righted at this stage.
    The Minister said that it seemed to be our impression that he would hold back information after an inquiry had been held, and he said that he would send the
    352
    information to any person who applied for it. Why should it be left to an individual to apply for the information about the inquiry which it should be the responsibility of the Minister to pass on? Why should not that right be put into the Bill? In 1961 it is high time that we got away from this antiquated system of leaving things to the Lord Chancellor. Why cannot we bring ourselves up to date and act in accordance with the principles of democratic Government?
    It is no good the Minister saying that he will consult his right hon. Friends to see whether they can devise a means of incorporating what we require in the Bill. We appeal to the Minister to give us an undertaking that he will do it without further consultation with his right hon. Friends.
    Mr. Willey: Perhaps I might intervene in an endeavour to bring the debate to a conclusion. We have had a good debate and there is clearly a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. I do not think that anyone would be uncharitable enough not to thank the Minister for the assurance he gave. I do not think that anyone would challenge his good intentions in the matter, and I would not challenge the good intentions of his Department because the record shows that time and again the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors have accepted an Amendment such as the one we propose.
    This is our difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to abandon these precedents. We feel that the course we have taken in the past in moving Amendments like this is the right one to compel the Government to accept this recommendation of the Franks Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has gone as far as he can go. He said that he would consult his colleagues and consider whether a new Clause could be introduced in another place to provide this provision wherever the occasion arises.
    Our difficulty is that we think that there has been consultation with other Departments and that is why this precedent is no longer being followed in this case. At the moment we have reason for having no confidence in some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who will consider this matter. We must

    353
    make that clear. In fact, we will strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hand if we make our position clear. Having had this debate, having called attention to the failure of the Government to take this opportunity to implement this recommendation, we propose
    to reinforce our opinion by dividing the House on this Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 168.

    Division No. 165.]

    AYES

    [10.23 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Hannan, William

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Probert, Arthur

    Blackburn, F.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

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

    Holman, Percy

    Redhead, E. C.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Robertson, J. (Paisley)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Collick, Percy

    Hunter, A. E.

    Ross, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jeger, George

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Small, William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Defargy, Hugh

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Steele, Thomas

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lawson, George

    Symonds, J. B.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Finch, Harold

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Forman, J. C.

    McCann, John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McInnes, James

    Watkins, Tudor

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mackie, John

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Manuel, A. C.

    Willey, Frederick

    George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Ginsburg, David

    Milne, Edward J.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Neal, Harold

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Woof, Robert

    Gourlay, Harry

    Owen, Will

    Grey, Charles

    Pargiter, G. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Mr. Charles Howell and

    Grimond, J.

    Peart, Frederick

    Mr. Sydney Irving.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Pentland, Norman

    NOES

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Curran, Charles

    Hobson, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Holland, Philip

    Barter, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hollingworth, John

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Dance, James

    Hopkins, Alan

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

    Bingham, R. M.

    du Cann, Edward

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bishop, F. P.

    Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Jackson, John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    James, David

    Bossom, Clive

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Fell, Anthony

    Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

    Box, Donald

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Braine, Bernard

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Brewis, John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Gammans, Lady

    Kirk, Peter

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Gardner, Edward

    Kitson, Timothy

    Bryan, Paul

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Leavey, J. A.

    Buck, Antony

    Goodhart, Philip

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bullard, Deny

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lilley, F. J. P.

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

    Gower, Raymond

    Lindsay, Martin

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Chataway, Christopher

    Gurden, Harold

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    MacArthur, Ian

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Cooke, Robert

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Cordle, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Corfield, F. V.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Costain, A. P.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Mawby, Ray

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hiley, Joseph

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

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

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Morrison, John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Noble, Michael

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Turner, Colin

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Russell, Ronald

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Shaw, M.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Shepherd, William

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Partridge, E.

    Smithers, Peter

    Walder, David

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Walker, Peter

    Peel, John

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Percival, Ian

    Speir, Rupert

    Watts, James

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Stodart, J. A.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Pott, Percivall

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wise, A. R.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Talbot, John E.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Tapsell, Peter

    Woollam, John

    Pym, Francis

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Temple, John M.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Rees, Hugh

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Mr. Whitelaw and

    Renton, David

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Mr. Gordon Campbell

    Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move,
    That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
    I seek your permission Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to move this Motion at this time in order to discover the intentions of the Government with regard to this major, very complicated and very lengthy Measure. I understand from my hon. Friends that we started on the Bill at about 8.15 p.m. On the previous Bill, to our surprise, there was a good deal of delay occasioned by a rather unusual number of speeches from the Government side. Obviously, we cannot be blamed if the Government cannot pre vent their supporters from obstructing their own Measures. We have now been on this Bill 2¼ hours—
    Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Monstrous.
    Mr. Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I said "montrous". It is outrageous that it should be a matter for criticism when hon. Members on this side of the House get up and say what they want to say.
    Mr. Brown: I must have been misunderstood. I was simply saying that we cannot be blamed if Members on the Government benches obstruct their own Measures. I was not intending at all to imply that Government Members should not obstruct their own Measures. Far from it. In fact, the hon. Gentleman may take it as a general principle that we think that most of the Government Measures are such that we would wish that Government Members would obstruct them more often. There is from our point of view absolutely no complaint. If the Chief Patronage Secretary should in any way at all visit his displeasure upon the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for obstructing Government Measures, I assure him that he has only to tell us and we will support him all we can against the Patronage Secretary.
    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was not complaining. I was only trying to make quite sure that the Opposition benches
    358
    were not blamed for what had happened. I did not mean that I wanted the blame to fall on the hon. Gentleman. Certainly not.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman's case would be a good deal stronger if he would remember at the same time that it was I who asked the Leader of the House last week whether we could have this extension because I thought that this was a matter of great interest to the House.
    Mr. Brown: Indeed, I am sorry. I just took it for granted that all the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends knew just what a tremendous fight he has put up to prevent the Government going through with the Bill too quickly. I am sorry; there is no conflict here. All my hon. Friends are impressed with the desire of the hon. Gentleman not to let the Government have their business too easily. We are impressed. We think it a very laudable ambition, and we hope the hon. Gentleman will not weary in well doing. But sometimes Ministers are apt to blame us for the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to do good, and I just wanted to make sure that we on this side were on this occasion in the clear.
    In the two and a quarter hours we have been discussing this Measure—I did not like that adjective and it was a little too loudly said—
    Hon. Members: What was that?
    An Hon. Member: Slippery?
    Mr. Brown: The word was not "slippery," but it was a six-letter word which I am sure would have been ruled unparliamentary if it had reached the Chair. It certainly reached over here. The Patronage Secretary should set a better example, because it is taken up. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was it? Tell us."] I shall not pursue it, but I hope I shall not hear such things said again, because if that were heard by hon. Members over here there would be a tremendous storm, and, unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely—and the Patronage Secretary—I do not want to obstruct Government business; but if I said that word, obstruction would ensue.
    We have had two and a quarter hours on this Measure. We are facing a Bill of great complexity. The degree of

    359
    complexity is shown by the fact that the Bill came, I think, in February—am I right?—and we are still working on it in May. It is not our business that it is still hanging about. It is hanging about because of the need for consultations still to go on. We have still a tremendous number of Amendments to consider. I am told that if we group the Amendments, into groups of Amendments of like interest and matters, there will still be no fewer than 21 different groups to consider. In the two and a quarter hours we have got three groups done. Very nearly the whole of the last two hours has been taken up with one Amendment on which the first the Parliamentary Secretary and then the Minister obstructed themselves. We had, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—you were not here then, but Mr. Speaker will, no doubt, have told you—no fewer than five speeches from the Minister alone on the last Amendment, which must be very nearly a record for obstructing one's own Bill.
    I only recall this history for the benefit of hon. Members who were not in the House then, and for yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and just again to say that it could not possibly be argued that there has been obstruction on this side of the House. It is, therefore, I think, important at this stage to see what the Government intend to do.
    We are asked tonight to complete the consideration of the Bill on Report, with another 17 or 18 groups of Amendments. If we attempt to do this, then, at the rate at which we have been going on, clearly we shall have to go on for a very long time. On top of that, the Government propose that we take the Third Reading as well.
    Those of us who have county constituencies, as I have, and who have great problems about drainage authorities, about ditches, about watercourses which are not covered by the present law, all naturally want a new Bill to go through, but it has to be properly discussed, and there are many points which our constituents have asked us to put—I myself have refrained from speaking on Report until now in order not further to complicate or lengthen business—and which ought to be put on Third Reading. The Third Reading of a Bill as important and as complex as this,
    360
    dealing with little people at so many points as this, ought not, I suggest, to be forced through in the dead hours of the night.
    The Government can try to rely on the number of noses which they have about the place and think that they can vote everything through. On the other hand, as I have said many times before, Oppositions also have rights and opportunities which they can use. None of us on this side of the House wishes in any sense that the Bill should become a plaything in that kind of, I think, quite legitimate but nevertheless purely political business.
    I see the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) in his place. He will have a great constituency interest in the Bill. I am quite sure that he would not wish, and his constituents would not wish, the Bill to be dealt with in what might be a perfunctory fashion from his point of view. Perhaps he has not discovered that there are internal drainage boards in his constituency. I know that they exist, but perhaps he does not.
    Mr. Marcus Kimball: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, of course. I know all about them, and, in fact, I attended a dinner given by the I.D.B.s in my area only recently, and they appreciated that it was hon. Members opposite who were holding up the Bill.
    Mr. Brown: I have not been disappointed tonight. I have only to look about and immediately I am helped in this matter. I did not suggest that the hon. Member for Gainsborough was at all lacking in a desire or ability to go to dinners. That was not the point I was discussing. I was not discussing his capacity to attend dinners or his capacity to make after-dinner speeches, about which I know very little. What I was discussing was the position of internal drainage boards. The internal drainage boards in his constituency have a great interest in this Bill. I have no doubt that many small farmers and urban constituents in his constituency have a great interest in seeing put on the Statute Book as soon as possible fully effective legislation to amend the existing defective land drainage legislation.
    I am quite sure that many of the hon. Member's constituents have written to him, as mine have written to me, urging

    361
    that in some respects the Bill does not amend the law as fully as it should. The hon. Member will, no doubt, wish to advance arguments on behalf of his constituents in Gainsborough. It would be wrong to try to push the Bill through during the dead hours of the night.
    I say frankly that, if an attempt is made to get the Report stage and Third Reading, and the Ploughing Grants Scheme, this night, that attempt will not succeed. At some stage, we shall have to call it a day, or a day and a night, and leave something over. I should have thought that it would not be a bad thing to call it a day now. Good progress has been made. A very important matter of principle has been dealt with. Out of the Minister we have wormed—is that the right word?—
    Mr. Willey: Winkled.
    Mr. Brown: No—wormed an assurance for which every hon. Member now in the House, whether he knows it or not, will be very grateful when it is put into effect. It was a matter of important principle, as anyone who has read the correspondence and discussions in the newspapers will know. We shall continue in the same mood. We do not wish to obstruct. We shall help all we can. We have only constructive points to put. We do not want to take up time, but, of course, discussion does tend to take rather longer in the early hours of the morning than it does in the clearer hours of daylight, and a Bill of this importance ought to be discussed when our constituents may know what it is we are considering.
    We could finish now. I myself think that that would be the right thing to do. On the other hand, the look on the Patronage Secretary's face does not encourage me to believe that he also takes that view. However, it will be within the recollection of everyone here that, on other occasions, what the Patronage Secretary has thought to be the right thing to do has turned out to be very ill-advised indeed. I happen to like the Patronage Secretary. As is well known, I am a man of peculiar tastes, and I have never taken the view that all my right hon. and hon. Friends should necessarily follow me in all my tastes. Liking the right hon. Gentleman as I do, I want now, as I have tried to do on previous evenings, to help him.
    362
    10.45 p.m.
    If the right hon. Gentleman were to finish now and let us come back to this on another occasion, he would fairly certainly find that his business would be thereby advantaged. When I have said this to him before, I have found a regrettable reluctance by him to believe me, which, speaking as an Anglican, I always find rather painful, unhappy and unsettling. I hope that he does not disbelieve me tonight. If he does, we must ask the Minister what other ideas the Patronage Secretary has wickedly put into his ears and at what other stage this evening he intends to finish.
    If the Minsiter says he wants "the lot", I assure him that at some stage in the early hours of the morning, we shall be on a similar Motion to this one; we shall still have to say that it will not be so, and he will have to agree. It would be useful to the House to know what the Minister has in mind. He should give up now; he would not lose anything. If he wants to go on, in view of the complexity of the Bill and the importance of the matters we have to consider, it would be useful for him to tell us how far he wants to go and see whether we can help him to get that far.
    I hope that the Minister will not be arrogant or ride roughshod, not over the Opposition, but over our constituents and the legitimate interests outside who are affected by the Bill and the impositions which it makes on many people. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to bully his way through. We will be reasonable about it. Either let us go now or fix a reasonable point in time or in the Bill, and then we will be willing to consider what the Minister has to say.
    Mr. Soames: The Bill has had a history of running in fits and starts. At times it has gone very fast and at other times very slowly. On recommittal, only one Clause was agreed to after a long period of debate. We then had another day on the Bill on Report, a couple of weeks ago, and we made great progress and got twenty-six Clauses through. Many of the complex Clauses to which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) referred have already passed Report.
    Starting, as we did, at 8.15 p.m., I should have thought there would be

    363
    every chance to do what, I am sure, many hon. Members, on both sides, would like to do: that is, to complete the stages of the Bill. We had the debate which lasted a long time, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Early on, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the point raised by the Opposition would be considered before the Bill was taken in another place, but a considerable amount of extra debate then took place and we have been a long time on the one Clause.
    There are plenty of Clauses. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there are, I suppose, some twenty-one subjects still for debate. Some of them are straightforward Government Amendments arising out of suggestions made by hon. Members, from both sides, in Committee and there are others put down by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite that we shall be able to accept. If we get on with discussing the Bill in the same way as when it was last before the House, we might be able to make exceedingly good progress in not too much time and, perhaps, succeed in getting the remaining stages of the Bill. In any event, we have not been on it long yet. It is not all that unusual to be still debating these things at half-past ten or eleven o'clock. I suggest that we bash on for a bit and see how we get on.
    Mr. G. Brown: We were all fascinated by the elegant phrase "Bash on for a bit". Speaking for myself, bashing on is always an attractive proposition, but could the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "a bit"? We do not mind the bashing, but what did the right hon. Gentleman mean by "bit". Was it up to 11.30 or midnight?
    Mr. Soames: I was trying not to be too precise. I said that if we had the kind of discussion that we had when the Bill was previously before us, we should be able to get on very well. Who knows how far we might get? I suggest that we should go on for a bit.
    Mr. Willis: I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply to the very reasonable request of my hon. Friends. I am disappointed because on the time that we spend on the Bill depends the time when we shall reach Scottish business. I can see Scottish Members oppo-
    364
    site who, I am sure, are most anxious to have a thorough discussion of the Ploughing Grants Scheme. I see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) sitting opposite. He is a well-known farmer who writes articles on fanning. I am sure that he has an important contribution to make to the subject. I can also see the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who represents an important agricultural constituency. I am sure that his constituents will want to know what he has to say about the ploughing grants. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) also represents a large agricultural constituency. I can see by the looks on the faces of these hon. Members that they are all keen to debate the grants.
    If we are to spend hours on this Bill it will be very late before we reach that debate. I am waiting for it. In the course of my contribution to the debate on this Bill I deliberately curtailed my speech, and I informed the Minister that I was doing so, because I was anxious that the Government should get their business and we should move on to debate the ploughing grants. Nobody, therefore, can accuse me of having held up the Bill. Instead of speaking for a quarter of an hour, I spoke for five minutes on a matter that really warranted a half-hour speech.
    I am sure that that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is as anxious as I am about the ploughing grants. He made a most important contribution on the subject last year, which he probably remembers. [Laughter.] Certainly it was an important contribution, concerning the dishonesty of the farmers who were defrauding the taxpayers in Scotland of about £11,000.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of the ploughing grants on this Motion.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The thought of farmers getting away with £11,000 rather carried me away.
    If the Minister wants to get the Bill first, we shall be discussing the grants at about five o'clock in the morning. I suggest in all seriousness that that time of the morning is not the proper time to

    365
    discuss Scottish business. I object to this idea that we can always discuss Scottish business at eleven o'clock, midnight, or one or two o'clock in the morning. Scottish business is last on the Order Paper and we are the victims of the Minister's obtuseness in failing to appreciate the arguments put before him.
    We are also the victims of the gross ineptitude of the Government in their inability to get their business in an orderly manner at a reasonable time of day. As a Scottish Member I protest most vigorously against the procedure which makes it necessary for us to sit here hour after hour, waiting for Scottish business, while an English Bill which does not concern us is discussed. I agree, of course, that this Bill is an important Bill, but the Minister should consider not only the Bill but also the convenience of other Members awaiting other business.
    There are about twenty groups of Amendments yet to be discussed. If each group is discussed for only ten minutes, that means another four hours on Report. Ten minutes is not a long time for discussion of important matters. That means that it will be three o'clock tomorrow morning before we complete the Report stage, and then there is the Third Reading, which is to be followed by the English ploughing grants. That means that it will be four o'clock before we get to the Scottish business. I am surprised at Scottish Members opposite tolerating such a situation.
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Could my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) repeat what he has said in the last five minutes for the benefit of the Minister, who has not heard the argument?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That might not be advisable.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by repeating what I have said, but, briefly, the point is that the Minister has no right to keep Scottish Members waiting here until four o'clock in the morning to discuss Scottish business. If Scottish Members opposite did their duty they would protest just as vigorously as I am,
    366
    Instead, however, they are spinelessly supporting a Government which puts Scotland in this intolerable position. Why do Scottish Members opposite tolerate this?
    I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) treats this as a joke. He does not dare go to his constituents and tell them that he sits quietly in the House while Scottish business is put further and further back in order to suit the convenience of English Members. I defy him to make a speech like that in his constituency. I defy the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire to make such a speech to his electorate. Anyone who knows the Scottish people realises that they would not tolerate that situation for a moment.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am sure that the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) would be interested to know that we have now spent ten minutes watching the time tick away while the House is swept away in a flood of crocodile tears from the hon. Member.
    Mr. Willis: I am sure that the electors of Perth and East Perthshire would not think that ten minutes standing up for the rights of Scotland were wasted. They would want much longer spent on that issue.
    It is clear that the Land Drainage Bill will go on for a long time yet. Even with my lack of knowledge of it, I can see obvious and very important legal and technical matters, and matters affecting the rights of the individual, which will arise during further discussion. If they are each discussed only a short while, the Report stage will go on for a long time. The Minister ought to be a little more forthcoming and to say that we shall carry on until half-past eleven or a quarter to twelve, but not leave us with this indefiniteness which means that we shall be carrying on until the early hours of the morning. The Minister is not now here for us to make appeals to him. That is the trouble with this Government, right hon. Members of the Government Front Bench go in and out so often.
    11.0 p.m.
    Where is the Patronage Secretary? We are discussing the business of the House and there is no member on the

    367
    Government Front Bench present who can say yea or nay to what we suggest. The Patronage Secretary, the Leader of the House, the Minister, none of them worries about this. It is deplorable that we should be kept here like this with no one to tell us when we shall finish. There is no one to listen to the cogent arguments put forward, no one to hear the story of injustice which is inflicted on Scottish hon. Members in relation to business affecting them. At the end of the Government Front Bench there is now a Scottish Minister. I hope he appreciates that his business is being held up for four or five hours.
    Mr. Nigel Fisher: Reluctant as I am to intervene on a Scottish point, I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) made a point when he interrupted to say that at present Scottish hon. Members are not the victims of the Government's obstinacy but they are, and have been for a quarter of an hour, the victims of the eloquence of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and, if I might say so without disrespect, of his verbosity.
    Mr. Willis: As I replied to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, I am sure the electors of Scotland would like ten minutes to be spent in defending their rights and to see that Scottish business is dealt with in a proper manner, a manner befitting an ancient nation.
    Now that the Patronage Secretary has arrived, he may be able to tell us what we are to do about the Scottish business. This is a shocking way to treat Scottish business. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) shakes his head, but would he like to sit here night after night until eleven, twelve or two in the morning before we could discuss business in which he was interested? He would not tolerate that for a moment, and we shall not tolerate it. That is why we protest even if it takes ten minutes for us to do so.
    I have to listen to many things which do not necessarily interest me, but I have at least learned to listen and to respect the right of other hon. Members to make their points. I suggest that the hon. Member should do the same when Scottish hon. Members venture to make their points.
    368
    I was appealing to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for the business to be discussed sometime tonight. I have no doubt that he will be very tired having to sit there until five or six in the morning before he can put through that Scottish business.
    Mr. G. Brown: If my hon. Friend is referring to the Motion about Scottish Agriculture, I ask him to reconsider any thoughts he may have that we English are going to abrogate our rights so that that business can come on at six o'clock in the morning. That would be very unfair to the English business which will need rather more time than that.
    Mr. Willis: I must beg pardon of my right hon. Friend if I was being a little over-optimistic. We are anxious to get through the business and on that basis I thought that by six or seven o'clock in the morning we might be getting somewhere near the Motion about ploughing grants. The custodian of Scottish business in the House at the moment ought to be bringing a little pressure to bear on the Patronage Secretary. He should not be sitting there giggling away to himself. That is not the way to carry out the duties of Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He should be telling the Patronage Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture the importance of this Scottish business, and telling them, too, that we do not intend to be treated like this would making a protest.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little more forthcoming. Even if he is not prepared to finish this present debate just now, he might say that we will carry on till about half-past eleven—
    Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend has talked a great deal about these ploughing grants for Scotland, but if he looks at the Order Paper he will see that Item 10 deals with the Trusts (Scotland) Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee—
    Mr. Willis: Not tonight, no.
    Mr. Popplewell: I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) should be taking such a narrow, parochial, Scottish view. He is a Member of this House, as representative of the United Kingdom,

    369
    but is talking all the time about the delay to the Scottish business. He might say a word about what is really the most important matter on the Order Paper, which is the subject of the Adjournment debate, when my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) will raise the very important subject of the employment situation in south-east Northumberland.
    Mr. Willis: I appreciate the seriousness of the employment situation in the Morpeth area, particularly under this Government, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) would himself make that point and I did not want to anticipate anything he might say about it. I have therefore confined myself to the Scottish aspect, which is sufficiently important to Scottish Members to warrant a noise being made about our treatment, and to demand some indication of the hon. Gentleman's intentions now.
    I want to speak about the ploughing grants, and I want to know how long I may expect to have to stay here in order to do so. It is no use the hon. Gentle man just leaning on the Dispatch Box and saying "We'll just jog along." I want him to tell us what is to happen to the rest of tonight's business and if, in fact, as he seemed to indicate, we are to carry on with this Bill—
    Mr. John Brewis: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him how many acres are ploughed up in Edinburgh, East?
    Mr. Willis: I am doing my best to resume my seat in order to help the Government with their business but hon. Members opposite are indulging in a filibuster. The hon. Member for Galloway asks about my constituency. I hope that it is in order for me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to tell him that, as he may probably know, I have in my constituency the most fertile land in the whole of Scotland.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his dissertation on Scottish affairs to be discussed later. During our earlier discussion, it became abundantly clear that in this Bill we are dealing with intricate and complicated points of principle in regard to the liberty of the
    370
    individual, to assessments and to all kinds of things, and that we need very clear minds if we are to make an effective contribution to the debate. Unless the Government are prepared to assist in the matter, and although it would be rather a heavy task for us and would mean a considerable stretching of our grey matter to an unearthly hour, we shall, nevertheless, pursue our duty rigorously in an endeavour to help the Government with their Bill.
    It is surely only reasonable that we should have some knowledge of the time at which these present proceedings are likely to be terminated. To that end, I make a further appeal to the Minister to meet our wishes in this respect. If we could adjourn the debate on the Bill at a reasonable hour it would have a far more effective passage through the House.
    Mr. Soames: Perhaps I could help on this matter. It would seem that this debate might continue for quite a long time. Perhaps it would be simpler if we brought it to a close and if we came to an arrangement satisfactory to all concerned. We have got through a lot of business today with the Covent Garden Market Bill. If we were to get the Report stage of this Bill and leave the Third Reading over to another day it might be thought to be a satisfactory day's business for the House. Of course, the Orders would also have to be carried forward because they come immediately after Third Reading. I should imagine that we could, perhaps, get the Report stage completed in an hour or an hour and a half.
    Mr. Willey: I am sure that the House is greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and that we all appreciate the conciliatory attitude which he has shown throughout our deliberations on the Bill. This Measure happens to be an extraordinarily difficult one. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the offer that he has made. I think that with the co-operation of both sides of the House we should be able to get through the Report stage in reasonable time. If we could leave Third Reading till another day that, I believe, would meet the wishes of hon. Members on both sides. I am sure that many hon. Members would like to take the opportunity on Third Reading to say something about

    371
    the Bill as it will then be after our consideration of it. With the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will afford us another opportunity to discuss the Bill on Third Reading, I am sure that we should be able to make satisfactory progress. In the light of that assurance, I would advise my right hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion now before the House.
    Mr. William Ross: Before we proceed any further in the matter, may I ask the Minister to tell us what is happening in relation to the Scottish Order? I understand that it has been withdrawn. Has this been done by the British Minister, and did he consult the Scottish Minister at all?
    Mr. G. Brown: I have never refused to accept the advice tendered to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), whom I regard as one of the most wise and sensible Members of the House. As I understand the position, we shall, we hope, get the Report stage of the Bill by 12 or 12.30 or thereabouts and all the other business will be carried over. I understand that this has been done in agreement with the Scottish Minister—in my case with the agreement of my Scottish colleagues—and that we shall then debate the Third Reading of this Bill during the daylight hours of another day. Perhaps it will then not take quite as long as it might otherwise do. In view of this arrangement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 17, line 33, at the end to insert:
    "and, if that authority is a river board, they shall also notify the council of any county or county borough in which any of that land is situated; and any such scheme made by or notified to any such council shall be registered in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925".
    During our discussions upstairs in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) moved an Amendment to register all charges arising in the carrying out of these local drainage schemes as under the Land Charges Acts. It happened that we were advised that the words suggested by my hon. Friend were not appropriate to the
    372
    Clause, and we gave an undertaking that, while we accepted the spirit of the Amendment, we would put forward an Amendment which fitted the Bill more precisely. We have now done that and I hope that the House will agree that the addition of these words is an improvement.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 28.—(RESTRICTION ON ERECTION OF STRUCTURES IN, OVER OR UNDER WATERCOURSES.)
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 19, line 9, at the end to insert:
    (8) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section or in subsection (4) of section sixty-one of the Act of 1930 (which contains certain savings) shall be taken to exclude the application of this section to any work executed by persons carrying on an undertaking to which that section applies.
    These words are added to Clause 28 to make it clear beyond doubt that certain statutory undertakings are in fact bound by the restrictions in the Clause, unlike the provision in the 1930 Act. It was felt that when we were dealing with restrictions on the erection of structures in, or or under watercourses, it should be the river boards and not any other authority which should have the final say.
    Mr. Willey: I rise only to protest against the wording of this subsection. As I have said many times, I do not like legislation by reference. Subsection (1) of the Clause says:
    "The following provisions of this section shall have effect in substitution for section sixty-four of the Act of 1930."
    and from reading Section 61 (4) we would not easily draw the conclusion that the Parliamentary Secretary had explained the effect of the provision to us. However, I am obliged for that explanation and, as we are endeavouring to expedite our consideration of the Bill, having made my protest, I am content to leave it there.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 19, line 9, at the end to insert:
    (9) For the purposes of this section "watercourse" includes land which although not part of the normal channel is required for the passage of water when the watercourse is in flood.

    373
    The Amendment raises a matter which was discussed in Standing Committee, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) for powerfully adducing arguments then in favour of the present Amendment.
    One can easily call to mind plenty of instances where there has been building in a flooded part or flood plain which has made more difficult the work of the drainage authorities. I can see the difficulties which might be caused by an Amendment such as this, but the right hon. Gentleman will concede that, whatever the difficulties, there is a practical argument for some provision such as this being made. As the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to consider the difficulty, having been given notice by his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: There is only one matter arising from the Amendment which can possibly cause some concern. In the Fen country we have long stretches of land running between man-made rivers which are known locally as wash lands and which, at times of flood, are used as a means for getting the extra water away as it comes down, water which does not get away as quickly as with normal watercourses because there is virtually no fall in the land.
    Instead of allowing the spate to develop, what happens is that the two parallel rivers are allowed to overflow and cover this wash land. I want to make sure that the possible effect of the Amendment on that type of land has been considered. It is important not to upset the satisfactory arrangements which have been followed for many years for that type of wash land, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an assurance on this point.
    Mr. George Jeger: I support the point of view put forward by the hon Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The situation in the flat areas of South Yorkshire is similar to that in the Fens. We experience the same difficulties. When this matter was discussed in Committee upstairs, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to it with a certain amount of sympathy. He realised that considerable difficulties might arise if there were floods, and he undertook to give further consideration
    374
    to this point. I hope that further consideration has been given to this matter, and that my hon. Friend's Amendment has been seriously considered by him and by his right hon. Friend.
    People on flat lands such as those found in the constituency of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely and in my constituency experience great difficulty in times of flood, and it would be of great assistance to them if some such Amendment as this could be accepted so that floods could be legally recognised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    The Department has had a lot of time to think about this problem. We have had considerable experience of floods of this nature. It would be a great relief to the people of South Yorkshire as well as to the people in the Fen country if this proposal were accepted.
    Sir Richard Nugent: My hon. Friend was good enough to give me an undertaking that he would consider this matter between the Committee stage and Report. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, there is an important point here.
    We have had lengthy discussions about this, and I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has done his best to find a solution. The problem is fraught with considerable difficulties. First, there is the necessity to define these areas. At the moment they are not defined. No doubt the river boards could define them. They know where the rivers run to in times of floods and where the land should not be built on if the structures built there are not to be flooded. But at the moment these flood lands are in the main not defined, and therefore the Amendment as now tabled would not work.
    This was one of the matters we considered. As my hon. Friend knows, the problem is the meeting point between planning considerations and land drainage considerations. Local authorities have had a circular from the Minister of Housing and Local Government advising them not to build in these flood plains without consulting the river board concerned. The result is that some do, and some do not. In the Thames valley especially, one finds thousands of houses which have been built in the flood plain. When these houses get flooded in times

    375
    of flood, people complain, first about the Government, and secondly about the river board. It is extremely difficult for river boards to do anything about this because local authorities have built in the flood lands where they ought not to have built. These lands are the watercourse of the river when it is in flood just as much as the normal course is when the river is flowing normally. We have to find a better solution than the present one.
    One of the results of this Bill is a general expectation that river boards will do something more to prevent flooding and, therefore, we must put the boards in the position where local authorities intending to make a development in a flood plain will be under a statutory obligation to consult the river board to find out where the floods go before making the development. At present, all too often the local authorities go merrily on with their building without even asking where the floods go. The result is discomfort and damage where the building has been carried out and worse flooding in lower areas because of the presence of the buildings higher up the course of the river.
    I put it urgently to my right hon. Friend that we have not completed this discussion and that we should like a chance to raise the matter in another place. Perhaps in the meantime it might be possible to work out effective machinery which would oblige local authorities to consult river boards in this matter. The present permissive arrangement is not sufficient. I am sure that it would not be right to expect that the Amendment as drafted should be accepted, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House a reassuring statement that there is a prospect of a solution to this difficult matter.
    Mr. Vane: I appreciate that this is a problem of concern to river boards and it may well be one which, with increasing building, has become acute. My right hon. Friend and I have given consideration to this problem since it was discussed during the Committee stage proceedings. I have had talks with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and representatives of the River Boards Association in an endeavour to find a practical solution.
    376
    The suggestion in the Amendment that we should change the meaning of the word "watercourse" is a big proposal and would not be an easy one to carry out, least of all in the flood areas. It is not intended that all land which is ever flooded should be deemed to be a watercourse, but only such parts as are near the normal stream and which are indistinguishable from it in times of flood. It would be extremely difficult to decide the boundary of such a proposal and what part of an area which was normally flooded should rank as a watercourse. I do not think that it would be practicable.
    This problem is one of planning rather than of land drainage. As we agreed earlier, planning must mean working arrangements, the understanding of a whole variety of interested parties and the taking into account of many technical factors, if it is to be effective. The ultimate responsibility must lie with the planners. There is a factor outside the normal planning control. It is possible to build banks and other agricultural works which are not subject to planning control. They could be covered by the byelaws of the river boards, but that is another problem which would have to be considered in seeking a solution.
    11.30 p.m.
    Recently I met representatives of the drainage authorities and we discussed ways of improving the present arrangements. We thought the best solution would be first to try to improve those arrangements and that we would have a meeting called by my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Housing and Local Government to meet the drainage authorities and overhaul the procedure whereby local authorities have a close liaison with the river boards. They know exactly what is in the minds of the river boards and which areas are vital to them.
    If we had this close consultation, there is no reason to suppose that planning permission would be given in areas where river boards, with their technical knowledge and responsibility, felt strongly that it should not happen. We would repeat the joint circular over the signatures of the two Ministers and give that a chance to work. If it did not, we would consider later on a possible amendment to a general development

    377
    order, for it is there that we should insert a provision if it is necessary for us to take any formal steps; and that would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We think that is the way in which the problem should be tackled. It certainly would not greatly help us to add the proposed words.
    There must be this constant liaison and understanding between the authorities concerned. If it failed, and we do not think it would, we would then take steps which I have mentioned.
    Mr. Willey: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I think it right and proper that I should beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 31.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO UNDERTAKE DRAINAGE WORKS AGAINST FLOODING.)
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 19, line 33, to leave out "functions" and to insert "powers".
    Mr. Speaker: It is probably night to say that I would allow discussion of the omitted series of Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) with this Amendment.
    Mr. Vane: Mr. Speaker, might we at the same time discuss the next Government Amendment, in line 43, which is in exactly the same terms as the one I have moved?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Vane: The Amendment is a drafting one. The Clause as it appeared in the Bill originally used both words—"functions" and "powers". In the Standing Committee it was commented upon that we had used two words when we apparently meant the same thing. I am advised that the distinction, if any, between the meaning of the two words is very thin and that it would be a tidier Clause if we used one word the whole way through and were consistent in our drafting. We therefore consider that "powers", being the better word, should be substituted for "functions".
    Mr. Peart: We accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. Our
    378
    Amendments were rather similar, and we sought to achieve what the Government Amendments achieve.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 43, leave out "functions" and insert "powers".—[Mr. Vane.]
    Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 20, line 9, to leave out from "by" to the end of the line and to insert "the river board or".
    I will, if I may, as it would be convenient, consider with this Amendment my next five Amendments.
    This group of Amendments is intended to deal with points raised in Standing Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said that he would like it to be provided that where a local authority proposed to do work on a watercourse in an internal drainage district it should obtain the consent not only of the internal drainage board but also of the river board. There is certainly force in this, that the river board should be consulted. A local authority's operations might affect watercourses which a river board might adopt as main river in the future, and we are, therefore, providing that before undertaking any work on a watercourse a local authority will seek the consent of the river board. It will be for the river board then, in those instances where the watercourse is under the immediate control of an internal drainage board, to consult the internal drainage board before giving consent to the local authority. This arrangement will save local authorities consulting two boards, and at the same time it will ensure that the river board is consulted in all cases, because often it might be affected, though indirectly, and though it might not appear on the face of it at the time affected. I think that this also ensures that internal drainage boards will be consulted where necessary.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central wanted to free local authorities from the need to seek consent of river boards before exercising their powers

    379
    under the Clause. This we could not agree to, but we did think it reasonable that there should be a time limit provided within which a drainage board should give its decision one way or another to the local authority. Hence the Amendment about the time limit, on the lines of that already included in Clause 28. I am sure the hon. Member will feel this is reasonable and meets his point.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells said that a local authority should be able to undertake work in emergency without seeking consent of the river board. We have taken a careful look at this and think we should like to try to meet him. There is force in that. I think the last of this group of Amendments is self-explanatory, and it achieves balance between the interests of local authorities acting in emergencies and the interests of river boards whose overall responsibility in the drainage area must obviously be preserved.
    Mr. Peart: I should like to thank the Minister for his response. I think we are all grateful that these points were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieutenant-Commander Maydon), the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and my hon. Friend the Member of Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). The right hon. Gentleman has considered the question of a time limit, and I am glad he has, even though he could not go as far as my hon. Friend wished. Here we are really dealing with improving the efficiency of consultation between local authorities and river boards and so on. Of course, we welcome this. I think the Minister has made an earnest effort, although he has not gone quite as far as we suggest in another Amendment of our own. However, we think it is good that he has conceded the points of view which were expressed in Committee, and we accept these Amendments.
    Sir R. Nugent: I thank my right hon. Friend for the undertaking which he gave to me, and I accept the delicate balance he has achieved between the various authorities concerned. I am sure that the House will accept the Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 11, leave out from "Minister" to end of line 15 and insert:
    (7) Before giving any consent or imposing any condition under this section with respect to any drainage works in connection with a watercourse under the control of an internal drainage board the river board shall consult with the internal drainage board.
    In page 20, line 17, at end insert:
    "and shall if neither given nor refused within two months after application therefor is made, be deemed to have been given".
    In page 20, line 19, leave out "drainage" and insert "river".
    In page 20, line 20, leave out "drainage" and insert "river".
    In page 20, line 22, at end insert:
    (9) Subsection (6) of this section shall not apply to any work executed in an emergency, but a council executing any work excepted by this subsection shall as soon as practicable inform the river board or, as the case may be, the Minister, in writing of the execution and of the circumstances in which it was executed.—[Mr. Soames.]

    Clause 33.—(REVIEW OF BOUNDARIES OF INTERNAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT.)
    Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, at the end to insert:
    (4) Where the river board do not propose, as a result of the review, to submit to the Minister a scheme under the said section four but it appears to them that an order under subsection (6) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1930 (which provides for differential rating), or an order varying or revoking such an order, should be made by the drainage board of the internal drainage district, they may direct the drainage board to make such an order in such terms as may be specified in the direction; but if the drainage board object to the direction it shall have no effect unless it is confirmed (with or without modifications) by the Minister.
    This Amendment arises out of suggestions made in Committee. The purpose of the Clause is to enable inland drainage ratepayers to petition for a review of boundaries of an internal drainage district. As the Clause stands, without the Amendment, a river board receiving a petition will review the boundaries and will then decide whether or not to submit a scheme for alteration of boundaries. It is "Yes" or "No".
    The Amendment arises out of a very helpful suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). It will allow a river board to go some way towards meeting the wishes of the petitioners even though

    381
    the board does not consider that an alteration of boundaries would be justified. It is proposed to allow a river board, if it feels that it would not be justified in taking action in a petition to go so far as to have a boundary review, to direct the internal drainage board to make a differential rate order. In other words, the board will be able to do what it otherwise could have done only in response to a petition under Clause 23 for differential rating.
    This new provision will apply only where a boundary petition is unsuccessful. Where a petition is entirely successful, it does not begin to bite. On the other hand, if a petition is unsuccessful, this new power can be used by the board. It will not affect the arrangements in the Clause for altering the boundaries of internal drainage districts where it is felt that that is appropriate. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this meets the point he raised in Committee.
    Mr. Bullard: I thank my right hon. Friend for having met the point I raised in Committee, which was originally put to me by the Association of Drainage Authorities.
    Mr. R. H. Turton: I am not quite as happy about the Amendment as my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) is. I want the Minister to go into rather more detail. This, I think, is probably the most contentious part of this Part of the Bill. If a river board interprets the petition strictly, it will, apparently, have to make a scheme in every case where the petitioners come within the terms of What is called the Medway letter, that is to say, where the land is built-up area and is above flood level or where it is agricultural land and is 5 feet above flood level.
    Since 1930, a great deal of land which was agricultural land has become built-up land. Good as the Minister's intentions in the Amendment are, as I understood his explanation it would seem that the river board must make a scheme in every case where the petitioner explains that he is within the terms of what we call the Medway letter.
    11.45 p.m.
    I apologise for using that phrase, but it is an odd case in English law that a letter written by a Mr. Dobson to a Mr. Baker has become drainage law. In
    382
    earlier cases, the attempt has been made to get the Minister to make the epistle of the Medway letter law. All that my right hon. Friend has done so far is to give this concession to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn. It is a matter of grave importance to my constituents and to many others.
    Take the case of three drainage boards in Yorkshire, one of which is the Market. Weighton Drainage Board. If a petition is made under the Bill as drafted, the river board would have to except from the drainage area one-third of the rateable value. In the case of the Foss Drainage Board in my constituency, I find that a rateable value of £41,000 would be reduced to £28,000 if a petition were made under the terms of the Bill. I am all in favour of so many of my constituents being released from drainage rates, but the effect will be to throw an unequal burden upon the remainder of my constituents who are ratepayers.
    My final example shows the ridiculous position caused by the Clause. The Marston Moor Drainage Board—not in my constituency, but in the West Riding of Yorkshire—today has a rateable value of £61,000. By the Clause, that will be reduced to £26,000. The result will be that either one, two or three of these boards will disappear as a result of the Clause unless it is amended with better provision than the Amendment.
    My suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister is that more detailed examination is required. All of us, on both sides of the House, are anxious for these drainage boards to operate. Since the passing of the 1930 Act, they have done a great deal of valuable work. It would be a tragedy that a mere effect of putting houses on agricultural land meant that these drainage boards could no longer operate.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in tackling the matter as he is trying to do in the Amendment by using the method of differential rating. He must, however, grasp this nettle and say that the river board need not apply the Medway letter rule as it has been applied ever since that letter was introduced. He should declare that river boards can use their judgment in cases where it is important in the interests of drainage that an internal drainage board should carry on, and, instead of making

    383
    a scheme, apply a differential rating order. In other words, unless in these cases the river board has a wider discretion, internal drainage boards in certain parts of the country will cease to operate.
    I assure my right hon. Friend that the Association of Drainage Authorities—at least, in my part of the world, the North-Eastern area—it deeply concerned about the present position. The Association appreciates the Minister's good will in producing the Amendment but asks him to take the matter further into consideration and, before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, look into the position again, because these people who have spent the whole of their lives in administering drainage boards are satisfied that the Amendment does not fully meet the case.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I rise only because I happened to be indisposed when this point was raised in Committee and I should have liked to have said a few words about it then. I have considerable sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has just said but I cannot go the whole way with him if I have understood him aright. I think that he was asking that it should be left to the discretion ultimately of the river board whether or not the Medway letter should be applied, and that it should be left largely to the local board as to what degree of variation from the Medway letter there should be.
    Mr. Turton: I was suggesting that when there is this alternative of a differential rate, the river board should be allowed either to apply differential rating provisions, instead of applying the Medway letter strictly, or, if it liked, it should apply the letter strictly.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: That the degree of differentiation should be for the board to decide.
    Mr. Turton: Yes.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thought that was what my right hon. Friend meant. I am not certain that I would be happy about that. It would have been desirable if we could possibly have done it to have written into the Bill something which was virtually set out in the
    384
    Medway letter, with possible modifications to bring it more up to date. That would have had my considerable sympathy and I am sorry that it has not been possible. Although it has worked extremely well in most cases, I do not like so much imposition on the public being based on a letter that passed between a civil servant and a river board official.
    It would have been desirable to put that right, but I cannot go with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton in leaving the measure of differentiation entirely to the river board, having taken away the whole Medway principle. It is the most distressing thing to me abouts Parts I and II of the Bill that we have not been able to ensure as near as possible a guarantee of equity for the individual ratepayer. This is what distresses me most about Part II which otherwise I should welcome.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said. If before the Bill goes to another place my right hon. Friend can see a way of contriving an Amendment which would embody into legislation the Medway principle, without being tied exactly to the level of the Medway letter, it would be doing a good service and would be an improvement of the present law. This is my belief. I see the difficulties, but we are getting into an extremely complicated sphere with cross-references to Section 24 (6) of the Act dealing with differential rating and again, in the Amendment to Clause 33, with a reference to Section 24 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. It is very difficult for the ordinary person who has to pay rates or has to seek a variation to understand exactly what all this is about. It would simplify matters considerably if we had the Medway letter or its equivalent written into the law. I regret that it has not been possible to do that. It would have been a major improvement. I hope that the time has not passed when the Minister could do it, possibly in another place.
    Mr. John Wells: I shall be very brief, but I might describe myself, if I were not the Member for Maidstone, as the Member for the Medway.

    385
    The letter which passed between Mr. Dobson and Mr. Baker has become an extraordinary feature, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving this satisfaction. I am also grateful to two of my Kentish colleagues—the hon. Members for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) who are here with me in support.
    As Member for Maidstone, I want to say only that I wish this could have been incorporated into the law on a proper basis instead of having dragged on in this extraordinary way though land drainage legislation for half-a-century. Those who want the law to be on a proper basis would like to be rid of the matter in that way.
    Mr. Soames: We talked about the Medway letter at some length in the Standing Committee. I certainly understand the desires and aspirations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). They also, I believe, understand our difficulties in as much as the last thing we want to create is something more rigid and inflexible than the present arrangement, unsatisfactory as that arrangement might be. I am treading a tight-rope here. If we could find a way out, without, at the same time, imposing the rigidity we do not wish to impose, I should be only too pleased to walk that tight-rope instead of this one.
    Clause 33, as opposed to Clause 23, is not concerned with differential rating. All this Amendment does is to cover the case where, when a petition is put forward for a review of boundaries of an internal drainage district, the river board may feel that, if it cannot go the whole way with the petitioners, it would be right to go half way, so to speak, and bring about differential rating. It would not necessarily be based on the Medway letter, as would a petition under Clause 23.
    Mr. Turton: This is an important point. If we pass this Amendment, will it be clear that the river board will have complete discretion either to make an order for differential rating or to make a scheme? Is it not the case that the fact that the petitioners, on the terms of
    386
    the Medway letter, are relieved from being a part of the area, will not be a bar to the river board's making a differential rating order? I am not arguing about the Medway letter, for that would not be in order, but I want to know whether the discretion in the Amendment is sufficient. If my right hon. Friend cannot give the answer tonight, will he do so later?
    Mr. Soames: In this Amendment it is left entirely to the discretion of the river board whether it accepts the petition or rejects it, or whether, on the other hand, it chooses to put in a differential rating area instead.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 38.—(PAYMENT BY RIVER BOARD OF EXPENSES OF OFFICIAL VISITS, ETC.)
    12 m.
    Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 22, line 39, to leave out "reasonably" and to insert "properly".
    Mr. Speaker: Possibly it would be useful to discuss with this Amendment the next six Amendments:
    In line 39, after "by", insert "or on behalf of".
    In line 40, after "official", insert "or courtesy".
    In line 40, after "visits", insert:
    "whether inside or outside the United Kingdom".
    In line 40, at end insert:
    Provided that, in the case of a visit within the United Kingdom, the amount defrayed under this section by a river board in respect of the expenses of any member or officer of the board shall not exceed the payments which he would have been entitled to receive by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance under section one hundred and thirteen of the Local Government Act, 1948, if the making of the visit had been an approved duty of that person within the meaning of that section.
    In page 23, line 2, after "services", insert:
    "whether inside or outside the United Kingdom".
    In line 2, after "services", insert:
    "or local government services inside or outside the United Kingdom".
    Mr. Willey: I am sure that would meet the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Government will accept them all.

    387
    We are now dealing with the payment by a river board of expenses for official visits and that sort of thing. We had a discussion about these expenses in Committee and the Amendments have been put down in the light of that discussion. The provision is:
    "A river board may defray any travelling or other expenses reasonably incurred."
    I suggest that the words should be "properly incurred". We have in mind the district auditor. If we define the expenses as "reasonable" that introduces the test of reasonableness. Whether expenses are reasonable or not is more difficult to decide than whether they have been properly incurred. This Amendment is to help to provide an easier definition. The subsection goes on:
    "by any members or officers of the board"
    As we are dealing with other expenses, we should include the words "or on behalf of". It is possible that there may be expenses incurred which will not be directly incurred by any officers or members of a board and it would improve the Clause to include this provision.
    The Clause refers to:
    "making official visits on behalf of the board."
    I suggest that we might extend that to "official or courtesy visits." That is to provide rather more definition in the expenses incurred.
    The next Amendment, to take them in order, is to make it clear that the visits would cover visits inside or outside the United Kingdom. In Standing Committee it was generally conceded on both sides that officers or members might make visits abroad as well as in this country.
    Mr. Turton: No.
    Mr. Willey: I think that if the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) looks at the Official Report of the Standing Committee he will see that that is so. This was commonly agreed. I had better say, in deference to the right hon. Member, that it was agreed by some members of the Committee that it might be quite proper for members and officers of a board to visit Holland. That might help them in the conduct of their responsibilities as members of a board.
    The fifth Amendment is rather different. There is provision at present in regard to
    388
    local government in the Local Government Act, 1948. In making provision for expenses in these circumstances it is well to be consistent and to see that the expenses are in line with those at present provided in local government.
    The sixth Amendment deals with subsection (2) and the defraying of:
    "any expenses incurred in the reception and entertainment"
    of members of the boards. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that that covers those entertained whether inside or outside the United Kingdom.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: Before leaving that, would the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks they cannot now go outside the United Kingdom? Where is the restrictive Clause?
    Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman was not, I think, a member of the Standing Committee. I do not know whether he has looked at those discussions but, if he has, he will know that some doubts were expressed about it. This Amendment seeks to make it quite clear that such provision can properly be made. We are here dealing with the relationship between the boards and the district auditor. In many cases, difficulties do not arise, but I think that it is unfair for people carrying on public duties and responsibilities to be put at risk. When we are legislating on expenses we should, as far as we believe it proper, make clear that this provision can be made.
    The other Amendment, again, seeks to clarify the position by making the last words of the subsection refer not just to "such persons" but to "such or other persons." This matter was also referred to in the Standing Committee. If, as I anticipate they will be, these Amendments are accepted by the Government, they will clarify the purpose of the Clause and make it easier for the members and officials of the boards to discharge their responsibilities.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I have some sympathy with these Amendments because I have been on one or two of the annual tours of their works arranged by various boards. I particularly remember enjoying an enormous luncheon as part of a tour under the hospitality of the late Mr. George Dallas, very well known to

    389
    hon. Members opposite, and a much-beloved figure among hon. Members and people outside of all political complexions.
    These Amendments awaken a memory, which I have not yet had an opportunity to verify, that the Auditor General has been asking some rather awkward questions about some of the annual tours carried out by those boards, and that a certain amount of restriction has had to be imposed. That is rather a pity, not because it is very good for anybody to have an enormous luncheon too often but because, throughout the year, these boards do a very good job, and it is quite wrong that they should not, at least once a year, be entitled to entertain those whom they think ought to see the work that is being done.
    These tours are designed to fulfil that purpose. Some commissioners who live higher upstream are sometimes interested to come down from, say, Northampton to see the lower reaches of the Nene, or from up Bedford way to see the lower reaches of the Great Ouse. I am not quite sure whether the Clause as it stands covers another category. If my right hon. Friend will look at paragraph 106 of the Heneage Report, he will find that it says:
    "The Middle and North Level Commissioners, who are constituted under local Acts, and who derive some of their powers from these Acts, occupy a unique position in the land drainage administration of this country. They are responsible for the principal drainage works in very large areas in the Fens in which the drainage systems are of paramount importance. Not only are the Commissioners' areas internal drainage districts in themselves for the purposes of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, but they also comprise within them many internal drainage districts administered by boards whose interests and systems of drainage are largely dependent on those maintained by the Commissioners."
    The point I am trying to make is simply that, to all intents and purposes, they carry out in their districts very much the same rôle as river boards carry out in other districts as well as in the river board areas themselves. I am not quite certain whether these Amendments or the Clause cover them in so far as subsections (1) and (2) are concerned. Certainly I think that they should. As, unfortunately, I was indisposed when this matter was raised in Committee, these Amendments give me the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend—if he has not
    390
    already thought of it—if he will look into the matter and, perhaps in another place, make sure that what is considered necessary for river boards is certainly made to cover also the Middle and North Level Commissioners because they are practically all my constituents. I speak from personal experience when I say that the job which they do is second to none in the matter of land drainage. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will feel fairly amenable to meeting the point which I have in mind.
    Sir R. Nugent: May I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for putting down this series of Amendments which includes some of those which I put down in Committee? The effect of the Amendments will be to widen the Clause a little and to make it quite clear that the boards have a statutory right to arrange all reasonable entertainment and to provide for all reasonable visits. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that occasionally the district auditor has made difficulties, but in most cases he has been quite reasonable. Obviously, it would not be right for river boards to be at risk in these matters when they are carrying out perfectly reasonable and responsible activities. It is in order to put the matter beyond issue that these Amendments have been put down, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept them.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for putting down these Amendments following the considerable discussions we had on the matter at the instigation of himself and of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and others upstairs in Committee. This is always a tricky point—just how far we should go in writing into Statutes what the expenses arrangements should be for an authority. One has to endeavour to hold the balance. I dare say that in the Bill—it is certainly my feeling, I must say, after the discussion upstairs and the deliberations on the matter afterwards—that we held back a bit too far and were a bit mean about it.
    What these Amendments do, broadly speaking, from the first one in page 22, line 39 to the one in page 23, line 2 on page 2357, is to set the river boards on the same basis as local authorities except

    391
    that—we shall be discussing this in later Amendments—it confines those whom they may entertain and for whom they can claim expenses to those people directly connected and associated with them in similar work. They do not extend the facility, as do the local authority ones, to other local authorities. This would not seem to be appropriate. Broadly speaking, they are put on the same basis as local authorities, but at the same time they are confined to the entertainment of and visiting, both to and from, of people engaged in the same type of work.
    I think that this is a fair way of dealing with the matter, and I do not think that it can be considered to be excessive in any way at all. I welcome the Amendments, as I say, up to the one in page 23, line 2. That is as far as I can go in accepting these Amendments, but as far as that I will gladly accept them.
    12.15 a.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) referred to the case of internal drainage districts. I agreed that there are some internal drainage districts which are bigger than others, but this is a river boards Clause and, broadly speaking, it is the river boards which are responsible for the major works and it is they, and not the internal drainage boards, which will make the visits to Holland and so on. Many of the internal drainage districts are small and many of them do not have large funds. The Clause has always been a river boards Clause and in that respect has not been altered from when the Bill went to Standing Committee.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend may not have thought of this before, but I ask him to give an assurance that he will study paragraph 106 of the Heneage Report before finally making up his mind.
    Mr. Peter Kirk: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is accepting the Amendments up to the third Amendment in page 23? We are going as far as the first of those three Amendments, are we not?
    Mr. Soames: That is correct.
    Mr. Speaker: That is my fault. I invited discussion of this batch of Amend-
    392
    ments down to and including the second Amendment in page 23, but the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) did not refer to that, but did refer to the third of those three. I shall put them separately and when we come to them we will see with precision where we are.
    Mr. Willey: I realise that I went as far as discussing the eighth Amendment when you, Mr. Speaker, indicated that we should go as far as the seventh of this group of Amendments. It will help if I say that I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and, as he is accepting most of the Amendments which I put forward, I will not wish to move those which he has indicated he is not willing to accept.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not even sure that I know which those are, but I will proceed and the House will determine.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 39, after "by", insert "or on behalf of".
    In line 40, after "official", insert "or courtesy".—[Mr. Willey.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 22, line 40, after "visits", insert:
    "whether inside or outside the United Kingdom".—[Mr. Willey.]
    Mr. J. Wells: I have endeavoured to listen to the argument so far, but this Amendment goes too far and I will oppose it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 40, at end insert:
    Provided that, in the case of a visit within the United Kingdom, the amount defrayed under this section by a river board in respect of the expenses of any member or officer of the board shall not exceed the payments which he would have been entitled to receive by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance under section one hundred and thirteen of the Local Government Act, 1948, if the making of the visit had been an approved duty of that person within the meaning of that section.
    In page 23, line 2, after "services", insert:
    "whether inside or outside the United Kingdom".—[Mr. Willey.]
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) desire to move the Amendment in page 23, line 2, after "services", insert:
    "or local government services inside or outside the United Kingdom".
    Mr. Willey: No, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient to discuss the next Amendment, in page 23, line 2, at end insert "or other", with that in the name of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), in line 3, at end insert:
    (3) A river board may defray any reasonable expenses incurred in publicising its activities.
    Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 23, line 2, at end insert "or other". I do so in order to pave the way for my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) to move his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Jeger: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, at the end to insert:
    (3) A river board may defray any reasonable expenses incurred in publicising its activities.
    I move the Amendment with a certain amount of hope that the Minister will accept it because this is his last chance of accepting a non-Ministerial Amendment to the Bill. All the later Amendments which have been selected have been tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, and consequently I hope that he will make a concession and accept this Amendment.
    This question was discussed at considerable length in Committee upstairs and I was greatly encouraged by the reply given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. If hon. Members refer to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on 31st January, columns 434 and 435 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am sure that they will share my optimism. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to concede that we had made a case for further consideration of the powers which should be given to river boards in respect of the transmitting of information about their activities to those who resided, and worked, in their areas.
    The Minister was kind enough to say that the Clause limited the information to those who were invited to lunch instead of being given to the general public. He considered that a case had been made for looking at the Clause again. He said that one did not want to limit them, that is the river boards, to the giving of information under the risk of getting into trouble; that there was certain information which it would be better to disseminate more widely.
    394
    It is true that that was said on 31st January, a long time ago, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have not had second thoughts of a sadder and more negative nature than they were kind enough to express on that occasion.
    The river boards have certain functions to fulfil, not least of which is to inform the public who pay the drainage rates exactly what those functions are and what benefits they will get from the rates they pay. They sometimes stage exhibitions in a tent or marquee at agricultural shows and they get into trouble with the district auditor for spending money on disseminating information in that way. The purpose of the Amendment is to put them out of risk of trouble with the auditor by allowing them to spend a reasonable amount of money on providing information at agricultural shows and similar events to the people to whom they are responsible.
    Not long ago at a Yorkshire show the local river board spent about £100 on the hire of a marquee and the dissemination of information. The board had a long argument with the district auditor about it, although the show by the board was rather mean and inadequate to portray its activities. If river boards were allowed to spend a reasonable amount, within their own point of view and after discussion with the district auditor, it would remove the fear that the district auditor would make trouble for them. By the look on his face, I think that the Minister will accept this Amendment and therefore I see no reason to prolong the discussion.
    Mr. Soames: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really expects me to accept the Amendment, because it is not long ago that we were having correspondence about it. I was not trying to mislead him by the expression on my face into thinking that I should accept the Amendment. I think that we had correspondence—
    Mr. Jeger Mr. Jeger indicated dissent.
    Mr. Soames: If we have not had correspondence I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I would have written to him had I done so—[Interruption.] It must have been two other people.
    This matter was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage

    395
    discussions and we said that we would consider it. We have done so. We do not regard river boards as authorities which need to go in for a great deal of publicity. Perhaps sometimes it is not a bad thing to disseminate information about the activities of the boards when people gather at shows or some such function, but in a Bill where we are setting out the duties of river boards we did not want to put the accent on publicity. Neither would this be the proper way to spend a great deal of money. It is a matter between the board and the auditor who may not object to some comparatively small sum being spent in this way. On consideration I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is not a matter which should be written into the Bill as being an appropriate item of expenditure. It is better left to the good sense of the board and the auditor.
    Mr. Peart: I agree with the Minister that we do not want to have the accent on publicity. We live in a world where there is too much publicity, and too much money is spent on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) wishes to safeguard the interests of the river boards regarding a reasonable amount of publicity. He quoted the case of a river board which spent a small sum of money on a small exhibition at a show. There is an example of the type of thing that he had in mind.
    Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Standing Committee:
    "Nobody thinks it necessary for the river boards to engage in the sort of propaganda which we see on all sides, because their work is not of the sort that needs it. On the other hand, there is much to be said for river boards and other authorities explaining exactly what they are trying to do, how they do it and how their money is spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 31st January, 1961; c. 434.]
    That has been conceded by the Government, and that was the purpose of the Amendment.
    12.30 a.m.
    I think it was right for my hon. Friend to raise the matter. It may help river boards to do what is legitimate in conjunction with the district auditors. While the Minister is not prepared to write this into the Bill, I am sure that my hon. Friend has done a service in ventilating the matter.
    Mr. Jeger: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to say that I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted my proposal or the spirit of it.
    I am sure that the Minister will take steps in the near future to put right the impression he has created that river boards are engaged in some frivolous activity—washing whiter than white, or something like that. That matches the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he does not accept the fact that river boards should indulge in propaganda in order to attract tourists. Will the Minister do something to redress the damage that his remarks and those of his hon. Friend have done to the prestige and status of the river boards? If so, I would wish to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Soames: If I may speak again by leave of the House, there is no question of doing any damage to the river boards, and the hon. Gentleman knows it full well. Of course there is not. The river boards undertake such publicity at the moment as he has in mind. That is perfectly understood. It is not required to take it any further, and that is all there is to it.
    Mr. Jeger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 48.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 26, line 44, at the end to insert:
    In relation to land assessed in accordance with subsection (4) of section (Drainage rates—basis of assessment) of this Act the references in paragraph (c) of this subsection to annual value shall be construed as referring to rateable value or net annual value, as the case may require.
    This Amendment is consequential upon the new Clause dealing with the assessment of drainage rates. In the interpretation Clause persons qualified to make a petition or appeal are described as, and are assumed to be, paying on the Schedule A basis. Now we have made certain changes in that and some will have their rates assessed on a different basis, and so it is necessary for us to maintain the rights of those people to make petitions.

    397
    The wording is a little obscure. We use the term "rateable value" in these drainage rates Clauses as the most convenient term. I explained when we were discussing the Clause earlier that rateable value differs from net annual value only where derating relief is given, and where it differs, net annual value will be applied. Thus, it is nothing more than to reserve the position of those whose assessments to rates will be calculated on their rateable value as against their Schedule A value.
    Amendment agreed to.

    First Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS.)
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 28, line 35, to leave out "estimated product" and to insert:
    "product, estimated in such manner as the Minister may direct".
    This may seem a very fine point, but this calculation of a penny rate will be made not on the outturn but on the estimate. It has been represented to us by river boards that, in order to ensure uniformity, some such provision as this would be an improvement, and the simplest way would seem to be to give the Minister power to direct how the estimate should be arrived at. In so doing, the Minister will consult the associations. Exactly the same Amendment occurs four times in these Schedules.
    Mr. Peart: I should like to thank the Minister. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) would have liked himself to have expressed thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for this. This is a point which has been raised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Minister has met it. We certainly thank him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 43, leave out "estimated product" and insert:
    "product, estimated in such manner as the Minister may direct".—[Mr. Vane.]
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 28, line 50, at the end to insert:
    6. After subsection (4) of section twenty-six there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
    "(4A) A drainage board may require the owner of any hereditament in the district in respect of which a drainage rate is levied to state in writing the name and address of any person known to him as being an
    398
    occupier of that hereditament; and if the owner fails to comply with the requirement or knowingly makes a false statement in respect of the information required, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds".
    In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) moved an Amendment to this effect, but in a rather more elaborate form, and I said at that time that although we could not accept his Amendment we would be prepared to accept the simple principle, which is that the owner of a hereditament shall be required to provide the name and address of the occupier to a drainage board, if so required. A river board will have this power, and it has been represented to us that drainage boards, which do not have very large staffs, would find it a good deal easier, on some rare occasions, to collect their drainage rates if this power could be given to them.
    Mr. Bullard: I want to thank my hon. Friend for having met a point which I raised in Committee and which the Association of Drainage Authorities wished to see embodied in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 30, line 1, to leave out paragraph 14 and to insert:
    14. In subsection (1) of section forty-three (which confers on persons authorised by drainage boards power to enter and survey land and to inspect documents) the words "within the drainage district" in paragraph (a) and the words "in the drainage district" in paragraph (b) shall be omitted.
    The powers in the Bill as they stand allow a drainage board to enter and survey land only within its own district, and since the boards are now being given power to carry out work outside their own districts, it would seem logical to extend the power to survey outside their districts, otherwise they could not efficiently carry out such work.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 32, line 3, at the end to insert:
    21. In section sixty-two (which safeguards fishery interests) the references to the fishery interests shall be construed as including references to the interests of sea fisheries and the references to the Act of 1930 as including references to this Act.
    This Amendment also follows a point raised in Committee, when certain hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member

    399
    for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), pressed that there should be a reference to sea fishery interests, so that, for example, if a river board were to build a groyne extending some way into an estuary or tidal waters and if, as could easily happen, there were valuable fishery interests, it should be an explicit obligation on the river board to have regard to those interests. We thought that something should be embodied in the Bill to cover the point, and this is the right place to do it.
    Mr. Willey: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the action which has been taken. It is in accord with the accord which spread throughout both sides of the Committee on this point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 33, line 9, leave out "estimated product" and insert:
    "product, estimated in such manner as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may direct."
    In line 17, leave out "estimated product" and insert:
    "product, estimated in such manner as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may direct."—[Mr. Soames.]
    Bill to be read the Third time this day.

    EMPLOYMENT, SOUTH-EAST NORTHUMBERLAND
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]
    12.41 a.m.
    Mr. Will Owen: The House will know that I have on previous occasions called attention to the importance of the subject matter of tonight's Adjournment debate. Probably, if the Minister had listened to my wisdom on those occasions he would have been spared attendance here at this hour of the morning. However, I hope to be able to persuade him to give serious consideration to the plea I make and not only promise interest in the matter but be willing to take definite action to contribute to the solution of a problem which seriously worries people in my constituency and in south-east Northumberland generally.
    400
    In February, 1960, the county council and the local authorities within the area, recognising the serious decline in industrial employment, convened a conference to deliberate upon the nature of the problem and possible solutions to it. A copy of the resolution passed at that conference was sent to the Minister. If I remind him now of the essential features of it, he may be assisted in giving the reply we all hope to hear from him.
    In the first place, the local authorities at the conference recognised the seriousness of the tendency of industrial decline affecting the whole of south-east Northumberland. Secondly, they expressed their disappointment at the Government's inability to recognise what was required within the ambit of the Local Employment Act and to concede this area as one needing local development action. Thirdly, they expressed the view that it was essential, in the interest of a fair competitive opportunity to induce industry into the area, that help should be given in the clearance of sites left by the declining coal-mining industry.
    With those essential points in mind, the Minister may permit me to recall some of the features extant within this special area. Within the county, there is a population of 800,000 people, and within the area of south-east Northumberland there is concentrated some 700,000 of that population. In other words, the greater part of the population of the county in terms of insured personnel is concentrated within that limited area.
    This is an area that is predominantly mining. The mining sector of the County of Northumberland was one of the first of the coal fields to be exploited in the early days of coal development. Over the years, there has, naturally, been a progressive tendency to exhaust the available resources and to compel recognition that in a period of time we shall be faced, not only with the challenge of a declining mining industry, but with the basic challenge of no industry at all.
    In the year 1958, the available mining jobs in the area were 41,000. In 1960, they had declined to 35,000. If we take into account the Revised Plan for Coal as circulated by the National Coal Board, the prospect before us is that by 1965, the available jobs in the mining industry will have declined to 31,000.

    401
    Realism in the assessment of this position compels us to recognise that this is by no means the end of the challenge that faces us. The essential development of increased mechanisation and concentration in the mining industry in the area is reflected in a Coal Board decision that in the near future, mining in this sector will be concentrated within ten or eleven major mining units, which will produce about 80 per cent. of the available coal production.
    We have no alternative industry in the area that will contribute in any measure to the deficit of jobs that is arising from the decline of mining. Therefore, we are, naturally, seriously concerned about the future economic security of our people and the urgency of enlisting Government help so that we may contribute to the solution of the problem. We recognise that this will not be easy. In the first place, to fail to undertake immediate action will result in either a continued migration of the population from the area or, alternatively, a major problem of unemployment.
    The population of the area has been relatively static for many years now at a round figure of 340,000. The increase in population has been constantly offset by migration. It would be the height of folly not to recognise the need for urgent action to deal with this matter. It would be the height of national folly if the Government refuse to assess the opportunities which are now arising for the introduction of new industry into the area before it is too late. I cannot understand that consideration is still being given to the encouragement of the expansion of industry in the new town of Crawley, for example, while apparently there is a sheer neglect of recognition of the real potentialities of this sector of the County of Northumberland.
    We know that in existing circumstances it is necessary to persuade industry to come into our area. In this respect the county council and the local authorities have exerted themselves over past years to introduce, by a series of major publicity efforts, a recognition of the facilities that are available for industrial developments in the area. We are faced with an immediate serious situation. There is an increase in the population and a decrease in the available jobs. In the period 1961–65 we face the school
    402
    "bulge" when about 60,000 school-leavers will be emerging on to the labour market. These young people have a right to expect at the commencement of their working life opportunities for a life of secure and progressive employment.
    As far as can be seen at this stage, their prospects are rather dim and it will be a real tragedy if they have to begin life on the employment exchange. That can be averted if the Minister, his Department and the Government will be willing to recognise the comprehensive nature of the problem and will take the action that is now necessary and imperative.
    I do not wish to over-paint the picture. I am anxious that the basic facts shall be accepted, understood and appreciated by the Minister. The problem is unevenly spread in certain areas, and particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne). About 7 per cent. of the insured population of Seaton Delaval is unemployed. Five collieries there have been closed. In the Blyth area only one of the four collieries remains as an active unit. There is unemployment in the West Moor area and Whitley Bay. The overall picture from five major labour exchanges in the area reveals that more than 3 per cent. of the population is unemployed. We have been told repeatedly that where there is 3 per cent. or more unemployment there is a legitimate claim for designation as a development area under the Local Employment Act.
    I submit that here, on the basis of the existing facts, there is an unchallengeable case for recognising that this area should be designated as a development area under the Local Employment Act. This would give, first us, the opportunity of securing Government assistance to remove the debris of the declining mining industry and to open up the available sites for the attraction of new industry, and, secondly, it would give us a competitive opportunity, on the basis of our available resources, to attract that new industry for the provision of employment.
    It is estimated by competent authorities that the area of south-east Northumberland requires, over the next few years, about 20,000 jobs to make up for the decline which is now taking place in the prospects for the immediate future.

    403
    The county and the local authorities have, with realism and determination, endeavoured to publicise the opportunities for industrial facilities in the area. In 1960, they set up a campaign plan. In 1961, they extended it with an expenditure of about £10,000 a year. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that the county and the local authorities have not endeavoured to do all that lies within their power to attract industry. We have done all that we can in existing circumstances.
    What is now needed is for the Parliamentary Secretary not merely to be prepared to tell me that there is already the possibility of seven or nine industrial projects emerging, with X number of jobs, in the near future. I hope that he will be prepared to give an assurance that serious consideration will be given to the designation of the area under the Local Employment Act, with Government willingness to assist by financial aid for the reclamation and provision of sites for industrial development, and that, in the interests of the young people, the door will be opened so that they might have some assurance of a secure future.
    I am asking the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, in this area, we have a reservoir of skill and enterprise second to none; that we have, in our grammar schools and the Ashington Technical College, the facilities for the teaching of the skills of new industry; and that we are, this year, evolving a magnificent careers exhibition as part of the endeavour to publicise the facilities we can offer to new industries.
    This is, fundamentally, now a question of Government action, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can be persuaded tonight not merely once again to say what projects are in the pipeline, but to give affirmation, encouragement and support, so that we shall be able, during the coming year, to look forward to Government assistance and commendation for the furtherance of the work which the county and the local authorities are doing in the provision of security for the people—both the juniors emerging from school and those displaced by the declining mining industry.
    1.0 a.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) has made a very eloquent appeal at this time of night for special consideration for his area. I should like to join him in saying that I believe that the local authorities have done a great deal to attract industry to the area, but we are considering the employment situation and the actual scope of the Local Employment Act. It is upon that that I should like to say a few words in the ten minutes or so available.
    The area about which we are talking I should define as the area of the employment exchanges of Ashington, Bedlington, Blyth, Seaton Delaval, Morpeth, North Tyne Last, North Tyne West and Prudhoe. Let us look at the actual unemployment in those areas. The numbers wholly unemployed at April, 1961, were 7,145 out of a total insured population of 310,258. That is 2·3 per cent. as compared with 2·7 per cent. a year ago and a twelve-monthly average of 2·4 per cent. There are only two areas in which unemployment has increased significantly in that period. One is Seaton Delaval where it has gone from 111 to 217. I did not quite understand the hon. Members reference to 70 per cent. of the insured population of Seaton Delaval being unemployed. The actual percentage is 4·1 per cent. in that area. What I think he had in mind was that 70 per cent. of the insured population there are engaged in the coal-mining industry.
    The other place is Prudhoe, where unemployment has risen from 85 to 112 and now stands at 2·7 per cent. That area we made a development district last year because of the impending closure of the only colliery, the West Wylam Colliery, and secondly because of its isolated position. It is difficult for people living at Prudhoe to engage in coal mining in other mines. Seaton Delaval is in a rather different position. It is true that of the five collieries there only one, Seghill, is still working and that is due to reorganisation. All the same, not many miners are still unplaced there. I am told that at the Seaton Delaval mine there are still sixty unplaced and there may be some from the Hartford mine, but most of the men from Seghill and

    405
    Hartford will find work at other collieries. It is in travelling range of both North Tyne East and North Tyne West and of Blyth and not nearly so isolated as Prudhoe. So we have not yet felt it possible to list that as a development district.
    Blyth is a different problem. There about one-third of the insured population is in coal mining and one-seventh in shipbuilding. Four pits are being worked and none has the prospect of immediate closure. The shipbuilding company has obtained two orders, one for a vessel of 20,000 tons and the other for a vessel of 2,000 tons. There is no reason to expect high unemployment there at present. There is no other area in South-East Northumberland of which it would be possible, in the view of my right hon. Friend, to quote the words of the Act:
    "a high rate of unemployment exists or is to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the powers of the Act and that such a rate of unemployment is likely to persist."
    Mr. Edward J. Milne: The hon. Gentleman has placed a great deal of stress on the unemployment figures. Is he not aware that those figures are greatly cushioned by the fact that no jobs are available and that people are leaving the area to find jobs elsewhere? That is a matter to which we want the Ministry to pay most attention.
    Mr. Macpherson: That is a phenomenon that exists in other parts of the Kingdom, but it is not directly covered by the responsibilities under the Local Employment Act, which looks to actual unemployment and the unemployment that can be expected.
    The hon. Member for Morpeth would like the whole area to be listed as a development district because of the decline—
    Mr. Owen: It is the only solution.
    Mr. Macpherson: —in employment in the coal and shipbuilding industries that he foresees. As he said, if the demand for coal runs at about 200 million tons a year there is the possibility of about one-sixth of the employment in the coal mines in south and central Northumberland being reduced over the next five years. There may be some redundancy, although the
    406
    Coal Board hopes that most of the men displaced can be offered jobs elsewhere.
    The prospects in ship-repairing are, of course, something that depends very much on the competitiveness of the various shipbuilding firms of the Tyne. There are 500 fewer employed than a year ago. In commercial shipbuilding, however, there were 300 more employed last month than there were a year ago. If Swan, Hunter, and Vickers were to win the tender for the Cunarder—and they have just as good a chance as have any of the other four tenderers to do so—the situation in the area would be very good, at any rate for the foreseeable future.
    For all those reasons, it is not possible to say that we expect a high rate of unemployment in shipbuilding in the North-East—
    Dame Irene Ward: I am listening to my hon. Friend with very great attention, but I do not honestly think that it is really a fair argument to bring in the question of the possibility of our obtaining the Cunarder. We all hope that we shall, but he cannot deploy his argument for our future on that possibility. What will happen if the Cunarder goes elsewhere? Are those development districts immediately to cease being development districts? That is not a fair argument.
    Mr. Macpherson: I brought that in to show that there was a possibility of a very considerable reduction in unemployment through this, but it still does not follow that with an unemployment ratio of 2·3 per cent. we could consider the whole area as one in which we expect high and persistent unemployment. We simply cannot do that.
    The decline of an industry does not necessarily result in unemployment. New industries come to take the place of the old—they do not always have to be brought in. The activities of the county council and the Regional Board for industry, and the Development Council have all helped in that, but there are 3,000 new jobs in prospect arising from new and expanding industry in the area, of which 1,800 are for men. There is none in Morpeth or Prudhoe, but in North Tyne East and North Tyne West there are some 1,175 jobs in prospect in each group, and some 722 in the Bedlington and Blyth

    407
    group. In addition, forty-three industrial development certificates have been issued in the last twelve months for a total area of just over 1 million square feet, and a matter of 1,500 jobs.
    My right hon. Friend cannot list a locality as eligible for assistance under the Act unless it has, or may have in the future, high and persistent unemployment. He is not satisfied that there will be such high and persistent unemployment in Northumberland. I am glad that that is his view. I hope in that we are right, but my right hon. Friend will certainly watch the position very carefully, particularly in relation to Seaton Delaval and Blyth
    There is no lack of interest at the Board of Trade in the area, and it is certainly an exaggeration to talk about the sheer neglect of the County of
    408
    Northumberland. My right hon. Friend and I visited it recently. The enthusiasm of the regional controller and his staff is well known and much appreciated in the area.
    In conclusion, I would just say that my right hon. Friend will be glad to see more industrial expansion in South-East Northumberland by firms already in the area or which are unable to go to areas with more serious unemployment. We shall certainly watch the situation most closely, but with the level of unemployment as it is just now and with the prospects as we see them we certainly cannot say that at the moment this area should be listed as a development district.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past One o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Imported Goods (Merchandise Marks)
  Imported Goods (Merchandise Marks)
  British Trade Fair, Moscow
  British Trade Fair, Moscow
SCIENCE
  Atomic Energy Establishment, Culham
  Atomic Energy Establishment, Culham
  Radioactive Isotopes
  Radioactive Isotopes
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Royal Parks (Taxis)
  Royal Parks (Taxis)
HOUSING
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Manchester
  Manchester
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Lake District (Motor Traffic)
  Lake District (Motor Traffic)
  Rates (Highway Expenditure)
  Rates (Highway Expenditure)
  Local Employment Act, 1960
  Local Employment Act, 1960
  GEORGE BLAKE (CONVICTION)
  GEORGE BLAKE (CONVICTION)
  LAOS
  LAOS
  COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS (DISCUSSIONS)
  COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS (DISCUSSIONS)
  WORLD PEACE
  WORLD PEACE
  SECURITY (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  SECURITY (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (SECURITY)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (SECURITY)
KENYA
  Jomo Kenyatta (Press Interview)
  Jomo Kenyatta (Press Interview)
  Civil Servants (Representations)
  Civil Servants (Representations)
TANGANYIKA
  Civil Servants (Representations)
  Civil Servants (Representations)
EAST AFRICA
  Asian Civil Servants
  Asian Civil Servants
TONGA
  Hurricane
  Hurricane
SCOTLAND
  Fleck Committee (Report)
  Fleck Committee (Report)
  Fires
  Fires
  Forth River (Pollution)
  Forth River (Pollution)
  Hospital Accommodation (Mothers of Child Patients)
  Hospital Accommodation (Mothers of Child Patients)
  Electricity Supplies (Remote Areas)
  Electricity Supplies (Remote Areas)
  Firemen (Pay and Conditions)
  Firemen (Pay and Conditions)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Cell Research
  Fuel Cell Research
HOSPITALS
  Amenity and Pay Bed Accommodation
  Amenity and Pay Bed Accommodation
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Drug (Purchases)
  Drug (Purchases)
  Sub-normal Persons (Admissions)
  Sub-normal Persons (Admissions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Department of Technical Co-operation
  Department of Technical Co-operation
  Common Market Countries (Investment)
  Common Market Countries (Investment)
  Press Cutting Service
  Press Cutting Service
  Payroll Tax (Retail Trade)
  Payroll Tax (Retail Trade)
  Foreign Pension Funds (Contributions)
  Foreign Pension Funds (Contributions)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Belgian Embassy (Police Guard)
  Belgian Embassy (Police Guard)
  Coloured Population
  Coloured Population
  Mental Health Review Tribunals (Cases)
  Mental Health Review Tribunals (Cases)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hearing Aid Technicians
  Hearing Aid Technicians
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Programme Companies (I.T.A. Receipts)
  Programme Companies (I.T.A. Receipts)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Chancellor

PRESS AND THE DEFENCE OF THE FREE WORLD
2.5 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in their relations with the National Press it is possible in any way to control or influence the publication of material inimical to the defence of the Free World.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, save in the most exceptional circumstances the Government has no wish to limit the freedom of the Press. Of course, freedom of any kind carries with it the possibility of aberrations from time to time, but by and large I think the Press can be expected to handle matters with a full sense of responsibility.
LORID BIRDWOOD: My Lords, while I would certainly accept that, by and large, the Press do treat these matters with responsibility, I. wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that there are occasions when particularly anti-American and anti-German material appears in the Press. Is it possible to envisage such things as occasional meetings between either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary and editors of newspapers, with a view to influencing the Press?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that most Ministers, like the Opposition, have opportunities from time to time of discussing matters with the Press; but I should not like to comment on the noble Lord's statement as to the directions in which sometimes the Press may go. I have said in my reply that aberrations do occur from time to time, but on the whole I think we are very well served by the Press.

LONDON AND MOSCOW TELEVISION PROGRAMME EXCHANGES
2.7 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the initiative for the B.B.C. Television programme from Moscow on May Day came from the Soviet Union or from this country; and also whether the arrangements included any reciprocal programme for the benefit of viewers in the Soviet Union.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend, as I reminded my noble friend Lord Teviot, three months ago, that programme content is a matter for the B.B.C. The Corporation did, however, put out a Press statement on April 27 in regard to the agreement they had reached with U.S.S.R. officials to the effect that a live exchange programme would soon be transmitted from London to the Soviet Union. I understand that the initiative for the May Day broadcasts came wholly from the B.B.C.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he tell me what reciprocal arrangements have been made? I think that is a point in my Question. Further, is it true that a report that appeared in The Times alleging that a reciprocal arrangement had been made reads to the effect that Soviet reciprocity takes the form of their being in a position to choose the programmes which they will receive from the B.B.C.?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the details of the reciprocal programme, because that is, in fact, under discussion in Moscow during this week. I did not seethe reference in The Times from which he quotes and I certainly have no reason to think that reciprocity will be on the basis suggested. I will, of course, find out and let my noble friend know, but personally, I do not know the newspaper's source of information, and it certainly has not been offered to me. Therefore, I cannot tell him what truth, if any, there may be in it; but I should imagine that so far the basis of any reciprocity is still being discussed.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether any indication is given to the B.B.C. from outside, possibly from Government sources, as to the proportion of time in total broadcasts which is to be allotted to one country, for instance, Russia, as against others?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. I think that reasonably comes under the heading of "programme content" which is left entirely to the B.B.C.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will draw the attention of the B.B.C. television authorities to the Durham miners' demonstration, which Sir Stafford Cripps put on record as being a bigger and better demonstration than the Moscow one?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord's suggestion is a most valuable one, as are all his suggestions, and I will certainly see that it reaches the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the proposed reciprocal programme is one isolated instance, or is it the beginning of an interchange?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am happy that the noble Lord asked me that question. In fact, it is hoped that it will become part of a regular interchange of programmes.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, could the noble Lord perhaps further say that when a reciprocal programme is arranged it will be a programme chosen in this country and not in Moscow?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I said in my reply to my noble friend's first supplementary that I was not knowledgeable on exactly what the arrangement was, and I do not think it would be proper under the Charter for the Government to lay down anything of that nature to the B.B.C.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be natural that if you are proceeding to reciprocal arrangements there should be reciprocity as to which side chooses the particular programme?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sure that if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition regards it as such, then the B.B.C. is likely so to regard it as well.

U.N.O. COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
2.13 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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:—

(1) what is the current daily expenditure by U.N.O. in Congo operations;

(2) what members of U.N.O. other than Russia and France have notified their intentions not to contribute; and

(3) what is the believed current monthly rate of cost to the United Kingdom Treasury of its membership of U.N.O.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary gave details of the cost of the United Nations operations in the Congo to the end of 1960 in his reply to my noble friend Lord Barnby on December 21. The Answer to the first part of his Question to-day is that the daily expenditure on the Congo Operation in 1960 averaged about £83,900. The corresponding figure for 1961 is likely to be about £98,200. The Answer to the second part of my noble friend's Question is that although a number of countries have indicated unwillingness or inability to pay their full share of the Congo costs, only the Soviet bloc countries have publicly refused to pay anything. The Answer to the third part of my noble friend's Question is that for 1961 Her Majesty's Government's financial commitments to the United Nations, both assessed and voluntary, total about £897,400 per month. This figure does not take into account the cost to Her Majesty's Government of such items as its representation at the United Nations Headquarters at New York and Geneva.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, might I ask the noble Marquess whether it is to be understood that France has not indicated her intention not to pay anything towards events in the Congo? I have a cutting from the Press before me which says that France has so refused and that this adventure is costing over £40 million a year. Also, with regard to his

83
Answer to the third part of the Question, may I ask the noble Marquess this: is it to be understood that, included in the sum he has mentioned, there are any special contributions, particularly with regard to the Congo? If so, would he state whether, in order to exert pressure such as was suggested in a letter from a Member of this House in The Times on Monday, there would be a requirement by Her Majesty's Government for a supplementary payment to the U.N.O. in order to act in the manner suggested?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: To deal with the first of the noble Lord's three supplementary questions, the answer, my Lords, is No; at no time has France publicly announced her refusal to contribute to the costs of the Congo operation, but the French Government's statements in the General Assembly have indicated their inability either to approve the estimates or to vote in favour of any financing resolution. But I think we should be extremely unwise at this stage to pre-judge the case; and we hope, of course, that all members of the United Nations will pay their share.
In regard to the question of special contributions, there have, of course, been special contributions of which I think the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is aware. Our first instalment was a sum of 3 million dollars. That was a special contribution outside our assessed obligations. In addition, we have promised a further sum of at least 2 million dollars, subject to other substantial contributions being forthcoming from other countries. I think that deals with the second of his questions and also with the third, on the supplementary payments. We have promised at least 2 million dollars, subject to substantial contributions from the other countries. I think that answers the noble Lord's questions.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I did not get it quite clear from the noble Marquess. Assuming it was thought appropriate to apply pressure in the form suggested in this letter from a Member of this House, published on Monday, is it to be assumed that such would be done without any further or additional contributions being made?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not want to dodge a reply to this, but I do feel it is a hypothetical question. I do not think the noble Lord can expect a reply.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the type of question, would the noble Marquess be aware that the general conclusion, I think, of the country at large is that the intervention of the United Nations Organisation as such saved things from being much worse than they were; and that in those circumstances the British people would want to support, at any cost, their proper contribution to the cost of such beneficial operations?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for his intervention. Of course Her Majesty's Government have consistently done everything they can to support the United Nations operations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the proceedings on the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill should be continued to-day until 11 o'clock, by which time it is hoped that the Committee stage will be concluded. I should also like to say that it has been agreed that the House shall meet to-morrow at 2 o'clock instead of 2.30, in view of the number of speakers.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (BLOOD TESTS) BILL [H.L.]
2.19 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 Amulree).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1: [Power of the court to require blood tests]:
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words after "the court may" down to "blood", and to insert:
"at the request of the mother, if site is the complainant, and shall at the request of the alleged father, give a direction for the use of".

85
The noble Lord said: Before I attempt to move the first Amendment standing in my name, I should like to explain to the Committee that the Bill as your Lordships see it now does not bear a great deal of resemblance to the Bill to which you were good enough to give a Second Reading. I should like to record my gratitude for the very great help which has been given to me by the Home Office, who have spent considerable time talking with me about this matter, to get the Bill transformed into its present, more satisfactory shape.
The purpose of this Amendment is not to do anything very definite to the Bill, but is merely to change round some of the powers which the Bill will confer. The present Amendment removes the power of the court to order blood tests otherwise than at the request of one or other party. This power is re-inserted in the new clause which I shall move after Clause 1. The second point of the Amendment is that it changes the phrase, "the court may, … by order require" to the phrase, "the court may, … give a direction for the use of". It was thought preferable to use that particular expression. It was thought that the requirement for a blood test is not a suitable matter for a formal order of the court, which would automatically attract the penalty provisions of Section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952; and those, as your Lordships will remember, are quite substantial.
The third point is that we haw, retained the mother's right to seek a blood test herself, although I am afraid that, in a way, it would be better if she could not, because the blood tests, as I tried to explain to your Lordships on Second Reading, can do the mother no good at all; it can merely do her harm. However, for the sake of sex equality, I thought it was better if that power were kept in. But it will depend upon the mother herself applying for the affiliation order. Where the order is applied for by the National Assistance Board or the local authority, in particular, the right will not apply. I hope that I have given sufficient explanation of the reasons for this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("blood") in line 9, and insert ("at the request of the mother, if she is the complainant, and
86
shall at the request of the alleged father, give a direction for the use of")—(Lord Amulree.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I should, perhaps, explain to the Committee that Amendment No. 2 is an Amendment to Amendment No. 1. It is therefore proper to call the mover of No. 2 first, and there can then be a general debate on the two together.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): First of all, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for his generous compliment to the staff of the Home Office. As your Lordships will see, we have a completely new Bill in front of us. In fact, those noble Lords who "did their homework" over the week-end brought it to my attention that we would not even be dealing with the Amendments as they were written down. That, I am glad to say, has been sorted out this morning in the new Marshalled List. I must make it clear that I can accept the Amendment the noble Lord has put before the Committee provided he can accept my Amendment to his Amendment.
I think it would be best if I first give an outline of the position as it originally was in the noble Lord's Bill. Subsection (1) stated that
"the court may, and at the request of the mother or the alleged father shall,"
make an order for a blood test. In other words, the court "may" of their own free will cause a test to be taken; but if the alleged father or the mother asks for it then the court "shall" order the test. Now the noble Lord's Amendment changes that situation slightly. He will have it that the court "may" at the request of the mother and "shall" at the request of the alleged father order a test; and later on, in another clause, we get the case that the court "may" order a test of its own choosing. The effect of my Amendment will be that we take the mother right out of the clause. As the noble Lord has explained, in fact, the appearance of the mother in the clause at all may be a trap for an unwary person. I think the noble Lord will agree with my Amendment, that the mother should be taken out, as it cannot in any way affect her case at all. It seems a sad thing to have to say, but such is logic and such is medical science

87
that these blood tests cannot do anything but disprove a possible father. It cannot in any way help the mother.
Coming back again to my Amendment to the Amendment, the mother is out, and the result is that the court may, at the request of the alleged father, order a test. We believe (this is jumping the gun a little, but this will be the effect if my Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted) that the court should have the option. If, because new evidence is produced, or for any reason whatever, the court should see fit to use its discretion, it "may ", (instead of an obligatory "shall") give a direction for there to be a blood test. So, if the noble Lord can see his way to accepting my Amendment to his Amendment, I would advise your Lordships to accept the amended Amendment of the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In the words proposed to be inserted, leave out from the second ("the") to ("alleged")—(Earl Bathurst.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has mentioned the fact that this appears to be a different Bill. I also should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and his advisers, for redrafting the Bill. In fact, if your Lordships will forgive me for being so immodest, he has incorporated in it every point that I raised on Second Reading. Indeed, your Lordships will recall that I was put in a rather curious position as a newcomer to this House, because I am a responsible person: I have been a Minister on two occasions. In no circumstances should I have divided this House unless I had felt very strongly about certain principles which were embodied in the old Bill; and it is a little unhappy to realise that the unmarried mother, in this House, certainly had no "pressure group" except in the form of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and myself. He and I went into the Lobby alone on the part of the unmarried mother, because we felt so strongly that certain principles embodied in the Bill were of such a character that, in fact, if they were implemented, they would deny her justice.
I realise that Bills of this kind are a little technical; and, no doubt, because the Bill deals with blood tests, many people thought, "This really is
88
something that I cannot understand". But this new Bill is entirely different, and, so far as I am concerned, it completely reflects what I think all people of compassion in the middle of the 20th century would ask to be the treatment of the unmarried mother and her child. I entirely support what the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has just said. The Amendment which he is moving does, of course, provide for the approach which I outlined on Second Reading. May I just say this to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree? I cannot understand why he comes to this House and puts an Amendment in this form. The fact is that he has forgotten the elementary fact that, in these blood tests, there can be no positive result; it is in fact a negative result, because the man can only be adjudged not to be the father. If the result of a blood test could be only to show that a man was not the father, would an unmarried mother ask for a blood test? Of course it is not in her interests to do so.
As we heard on Second Reading, this is a man's Bill and not a woman's. The Amendment which has been proposed by the Government is quite right. It would be grossly unfair to trap a woman into asking for this test when her evidence has already been corroborated, when the court has already said that a certain man is the father. I would remind the noble Lord of what the Lord Chancellor said in 1938 when this Bill was introduced into the House. He turned to the House and said: "I am a little uncertain about this. I am advised by eminent pathologists in this country that these tests may be inaccurate". The noble Lord is saying to an unmarried mother, who has already provided evidence that has convinced the court, that she has the opportunity to ask for this test; and there is the one chance in a million that it may be inaccurate, and all the evidence is then null and void. And the noble Lord turns to this House and says that he is doing this because of sex equality. The truth is precisely the opposite, my Lords. It is not sex equality; it is sex inequality which the noble Lord is emphasising here and is trying to uphold in this House. I say that because he has introduced something in this Bill—and I use the noble Lord's own expression, which, in my opinion, is an understatement—"to trap the woman". Is that equality?

89
I suggest to the noble Lord that he should examine his conscience and decide whether he will protect this woman, who is surely in need of our protection.
The other point is this. The noble Lord says that whereas the court may test the blood at the request of the woman, if the alleged father asks the court to test the blood the court shall do it. I apologise to the House for repeating that part of my speech which dealt with this question on Second Reading, but the position is this. If the evidence proves without doubt that a man is the father of the child, there are men who become stubborn, who have already quarrelled with the girl, her mother and family, and who say: "In no circumstances will I pay the affiliation allowance". But they say: "Ah! there is such a thing known as a blood test. If I ask for that, the court is compelled to direct a blood test". In other words, it is possible for a man to ask for a blood test on frivolous grounds in order to delay the court's decision, and any delay at this time will, of course, beat harshly on the unmarried mother and her child. Therefore the Government, who have thought about this and who have considered it behind the scenes very carefully, are of the opinon that, not only to do justice to the woman but also to protect public funds, the court should not be compelled but should have an option to decide whether it shall order a test or not. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, to consider this very fair point, which I am certain any large audience will agree, on reflection, is the right approach.
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I am glad that this Bill has been, as most of us have realised, practically rewritten. The principle is the same, and it is for that that many of us voted at the end of the Second Reading debate. The noble Lady opposite must be very glad, as she approves it now, that we were able to carry it in spite of her opposition. I agree with the point that has been brought out by Lord Bathurst's Amendment, and I agree with the noble Lady; it is quite ridiculous to think that the mother would be asking for a blood test. If she knew what it meant, she certainly would not. I think it is an extraordinary suggestion that she should
90
be brought in. I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why she should.
I was a little surprised at the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, when she talked about the unmarried mother having no "pressure group", as if the rest of us in this House were not in any way anxious to help the unmarried mother and did not know anything about her case. I realise that on the Second Reading debate the noble Lady, when addressing your Lordships, said, in the form of a question, that it was women, in the majority, who should always decide these questions; and when I disagreed with her she said that I probably knew nothing about the subject whatsoever and had no ideas about it. I did not interrupt the noble Lady because I knew perfectly well that she was not meaning to be rude; it was simply ignorance of the work I had been doing and of the amount I had learned over a number of years.
As many of your Lordships know, a Committee on the Adoption of Children was set up in December, 1938. I had the honour of being appointed Chairman. This very subject concerning the father was gone through very carefully, because, as your Lordships will now understand, we were anxious, with all these adoption cases, that we should know who the father of the child was. Then, our report having been made, about a year later I had the luck of the ballot in another place and was able to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject. I am glad to say that that Bill, when it came to your Lordships' House, was in charge of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, and it received the Royal Assent in July, 1939. During the time my Bill was going through the House of Commons, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, was in this House. There was, therefore, a great deal of interest in the two Bills, and I was frequently asked what was my opinion, and my opinion was strongly in opposition to the Bill, in 1939, of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr.
It has been explained that the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child were opposed then but are now in favour. And so am I, for this reason: we are far further on now with the subject and in our knowledge of blood tests than we were then. Having a blood test is now not a terribly frighten-

91
ing operation for anybody. As we heard during the Second Reading debate from those who are best able to tell us, this is practically a routine experience now for every woman in pregnancy. So these mothers, in all probability, would have had a blood test during the time of pregnancy; it will not be something alarming or dangerous for them; and, in addition, the result will be much more accurate than we could ever have thought in the year 1939.
I hope, as we continue with this Bill, that we shall see that we are doing something to make for justice, and I am perfectly certain that it should not be looked upon simply as a Bill for men as against women, as I do not think it is anything of the sort. I found in my Committee, and those who gave evidence before my Committee, that men were just as eager and keen to see that justice was done to the woman as were the women themselves; and women have not always been tremendously sympathetic with the unmarried mother and her child. But, in doing so, I think we have to get justice, and if we can get justice, the work we are doing on this Bill will be worth while. For it is not only that a man may be wrongly accused of being the father of a child, but—a point which has always struck me—it means that the real father has got off scot-free. That we want to change. But I do think that the Bill as it now stands, and if these Amendments are accepted, has been improved. I feel that, after being against the scheme in 1939, I can now support it, but I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, not to press the idea of putting in this right for the woman, because I think that there is no good in it and that it might lead to a great deal of harm.
2.40 p.m.
LORD REA: Leaving aside for the moment the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to unmarried mothers in this House, as she put it, having no support, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is not asking the House to deal with two matters at the same time—first of all, to consider taking out "mother" altogether, and secondly to decide whether, with respect to the father, the word is to be "shall" or "may"? I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Amulree, but on the hypothesis that we are prepared to take
92
"mother" out of the Bill, can we be put in a position to support or oppose "shall" or "may" with respect to the father? Perhaps that is a point for the Lord Chairman, but it seems to me that we have to vote for both or neither.
EARL BATHURST: What the noble Lord says is true. Possibly, I was running on a little too far, but I wanted to make clear what the effects of the two Amendments would be to the original clause. First of all, we are considering only the mother, and my Amendment to the Amendment will remove from the Bill the mother's right to apply, as the noble Lord has already said.
LORD REA: But it will still read "may" in respect of the father, instead of "shall"?
EARL BATHURST: The full result of the Government's Amendment will be to bring in "may".
LORD AMULREE: I have listened to what your Lordships have said about the Amendment, and personally I shall be quite willing to remove the mother from Clause 1 of the Bill, because I have always had great doubts whether it was right to keep in the mother and because, as the noble Lady said, it is really a trap for her. However, I felt constrained to keep the mother in until we could debate the matter in your Lordships' House. I was told by certain women's organisations that they thought the mother should have an equal chance. I tried to convince them that they were wrong, and I am pleased indeed to-day to have support on this. I shall be pleased in future to drop the mother from the Bill.
When I come to the question of the words "may" or shall", I am in some difficulty. If I may take your Lordships back a little, when the Bill was first introduced, in February, 1939, it contained the word "shall" in Clause 1, and was given an unopposed Second Reading. It was then referred to a Select Committee, which sat quite a long time and discussed the question at great length. When the Bill came back from the Select Committee the word "shall" was still there. It was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House a month or two back and the word "shall" was approved by a majority, which, I may say without undue pride, was a big majority. Therefore, I feel reluctant to drop the word "shall".

93
Another reason for keeping it in is that it may be of great help in aiding justice. I have been informed by people who know more about the courts than I do (practically, I know very little about them) that some courts may not agree with the test at all, and that, no matter what the position was, if the alleged father were to ask for a test, if the power were only permissive, they might say, "No" That is why I am anxious to retain the word "shall" rather than replace it with the word "may". It may be possible to compromise on this point to get us out of the difficulty, and I wonder whether the noble Earl could give us any assistance in this.
EARL BATHURST: I should like to give the noble Lord assistance, but I do not think that I can. When we get down to Amendment No. 7, which I shall ask your Lordships not to accept, we shall see that the noble Lord sets out the conditions for the compulsory power to take a blood test. The arguments against are much the same, and I wonder whether I can use one of them now which may convince the noble Lord. In view of the new rules that have only just come to be applied to such cases, whereby legal aid can be obtained by the parties in an action, I think that one, or even both, of the parties may almost certainly be aided legally, or may qualify for such aid. That being so, it will no longer be necessary for the court to have to make an order for a blood test, and for that reason I should like to see the court with only the power of "may". I would ask the noble Lord to think on these lines.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: May I put this point to the noble Lord to try to persuade him? He will be quite logical if he gives way on this point. I would remind him that, in a later Amendment, he is asking us to provide that the courts
"may at any time revoke any such direction previously given".
In other words, the noble Lord has not shut the door. He feels that he should not move away from the position that the courts "shall" do something, but later on he says that the court may change its mind. Therefore, he is being quite logical if he gives way now.
LORD AMULREE: That being so, I think it is possibly more important to
94
get "mother" taken out of the Bill than to have "shall" in. But I say that with great reluctance, because it takes away a little of the sharp edge of the Bill, which may be important in the case of a recalcitrant bench of magistrates. I want the Amendment to be put, though I shall not divide the Committee.
EARL BATHURST: I think that the court would use this power only in the case of the stupidest of stupid men. But with legal aid the stupidest of stupid men should be able to get properly qualified advice. If, having done that, he still refuses, I wonder whether we need bother too much in such a case—though far be it from me to say so. In view of the Legal Aid Scheme I am sure that the necessity which the noble Lord would like to see provided for will have disappeared.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I should prefer to keep in the word "shall". I would say to the noble Earl that there are lots of stupid men and stupid women. While we think that they could all be led to seek justice and rightness and the sense of things, they are not always first led. If the majority of your Lordships wish to take out "shall" and put in "may", I shall not oppose it, but I think it would be better if the word "shall" were left in.
EARL BATHURST: With great respect to the noble Lady, I think she knows that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has an Amendment on the Marshalled List, which I think would go a long way to look after the point she has raised, and I would ask your Lordships to bear this Amendment in mind.
LORD AMULREE: What I had in mind was not a stupid plaintiff, but a stupid bench of magistrates.
EARL BATHURST: I do not think that the noble Lord would wish me to comment on that.
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
2.50 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1) to omit "if the mother refuses the court shall dismiss the application", and to insert:
"may at any time revoke any such direction previously given.
(2) Where a direction is given under this section at the request of the mother or of the alleged father, she or he (as the case may be) shall pay the cost of taking and testing blood samples for the purpose of giving effect to the direction (including any expenses reasonably incurred by the mother or by any person having the custody, charge or care of the child in taking any steps required of her or him for the purpose), but the amount paid shall be treated as costs incurred by the mother or alleged father, as the case may be, in the proceedings.
(3) The results of blood tests taken for the purpose of giving effect to such a direction shall (in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949) be certified to the court by the person carrying out the tests, together with his opinion on the question whether the alleged father is thereby excluded from being the father of the child, and the court shall take the certificate into account as evidence in the proceedings of the matters certified; but the results of blood tests so taken shall not in any event be treated in those proceedings or in any other proceedings for an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957 (including proceedings on appeal) as satisfying the provision of that Act requiring the mother's evidence to be corroborated.
(4) In any proceedings for an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957 (including proceedings on appeal) things done for the purpose of giving effect to a direction under this section, whether given in those proceedings or not, may be proved by documentary evidence in such cases, and in such manner, and subject to such conditions as may be provided by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949.
(5) A court of quarter sessions on the hearing of an appeal against an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957, or against the dismissal of an application for such an affiliation order, shall have the like power to give a direction under subsection (1) above as a magistrates' court has on the hearing of such an application, and subsections (2) and (3) shall apply accordingly.
(6) A court shall not give a direction under this section where a previous direction has been so given by any court in respect of the same persons and the results of blood tests taken to give effect to the previous direction have been duly certified to the court giving that direction"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment replaces a number of provisions as they were originally drafted, and also contains a certain amount of new material. The opening words of the Amendment give the power to revoke a direction for the use of blood tests. This is inserted to give the court a power to dispose of the direction if blood tests are not to be used. For example, it is a formal consequence of the provision which gives the court a dis-
96
cretion whether to dismiss an application for an affiliation order where a direction for a blood test is not complied with. It would also be used if the mother, after a direction had been given, produced a good reason for not undergoing a test.
Subsection (2) provides that the party who asks for the blood test shall initially meet the costs, and that the court shall have the usual power to order the other party to repay all or part of the costs, as costs incurred in the proceedings. Where the party to the blood test is entitled to legal aid, these costs will be supplied from the legal aid fund. Subsection (3) replaces, in a more generous form, some of the provisions of the original Clause 3. There the details of the certification procedure are left to the rules of court, as is appropriate to cases of this kind. The new subsection simply requires the court to take account of the certificate, which meets the criticism made during Second Reading that the clause had an air of mystery and that the certificate whether it was positive or negative might be concealed from the court. It provides, however, that the results of these blood tests shall not be regarded as corroborative of the mother's evidence. This is in accordance with the expert advice I received, as in the present state of medical knowledge tests cannot show that a particular man was the father.
Subsection (4) replaces another provision in the original Clause 3 by making provision for evidence of a blood sample to be given in the form of a certificate. This means that it will not be necessary for a witness to attend the court. It is intended to make provision in the rule which will come under this clause for oral evidence to be given if either of the two parties so desires. This corresponds to the original Clause 3. Subsection (5) corresponds with the original Clause 5, except that the power of quarter sessions to order a blood test to be carried out in a case where blood tests have already been carried out for the purpose of the original proceedings disappears. There is no point in having this duplicated. Subsection (6) prevents the court from giving two directions for a blood test in one case. There is no advantage in giving the court power to try a second time to see if the result is the same. Such a course would merely cause delay and expense, probably leading to great hardship on the parties, and might cast doubt

97
on the reliability of the scientific nature of blood tests. If something is known to have gone wrong with the original test—for example, where there had been personation, or where a wrong sample had been tested—a test which suffered from such a defect could not be regarded as compliance with the court's direction. I hope that this explains this somewhat long Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 1, leave out from ("and") to end of line 13 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Amulree.)
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in the proposed new subsection (2) to leave out from "section" down to the first "shall" and insert "the alleged father".
The noble Earl said: I can accept the noble Lord's Amendment if he will accept my two Amendments to it—Nos. 4 and 5—which are really consequential on my last Amendment. Having taken out "mother" in his first Amendment, we want now to modify subsection (2) of his Amendment No. 3 so that the mother is no longer referred to. We have deleted her from his first Amendment, and therefore there is no need to refer again to her case in Amendment No. 3. If the noble Lord will accept Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 as Amendments to his Amendment, I can accept all that he has just said. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 1 of subsection (2), leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 3 and insert ("the alleged father")—(Earl Bathurst.)
EARL BATHURST: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 8 of subsection (2), leave out ("the mother or alleged father, as the case may be") and insert ("him")—(Earl Bathurst.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for the most generous way in which he has responded to all the suggestions and points we made on Second Reading. The new Clause 1 is hardly recognisable, particularly when we think of the words as they were:
"if the mother refuses the court shall dismiss the application."
98
The noble Lord has now deleted all that, and I think he will agree with me that it was a harsh and inhuman provision. Indeed I said on Second Reading that I thought it would be establishing a precedent if we denied justice to a woman who refused to have a blood test. I must point out that when blood tests were being discussed on a recent traffic Bill there was a great storm when it was suggested that people should be compelled to have blood tests; but we did not have much support when it was a question of the unmarried mother being subjected to a blood test. I thank the noble Lord.
He then said that he will insert, in place of that provision:
"may at any time revoke any such direction previously given".
I reminded him just now that it is quite logical that he should have withdrawn the first point, because he is still holding the fort and the order can be revoked by the court. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Longford has gone, because he was anxious that a "conscience clause" should be included. As I said on Second Reading, there are some young women who would object on religious grounds to a blood test. Here is what I consider an opportunity for a woman to be able to give a good reason (it is mentioned later on) for not having the blood test. I feel that in this matter the noble Lord has exercised mercy while justice is still being done.
The other point I want to congratulate him on is this. I am pleased that he saw the point about the certificates. I felt that that was a harsh provision: that only the certificates which were of benefit to men should be submitted, and if the woman wanted any other evidence she had to ask for it—and, indeed, probably pay for it; which might be very expensive, if it was professional evidence. Now the whole position is changed; and not only will the certificates he submitted, but the person responsible for the test will be able to go to the court and explain precisely what it means. Therefore, I feel that the noble Lord has very generously met all the points we raised; and I am sure the other Amendment, which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said is purely consequential, will be accepted.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to thank the noble Lady for her kind words.

99
I am pleased that this Bill has now become a more reasonable, humanitarian and, at the same time, just measure. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, that I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendments that he has moved.
On Question, Amendments to Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
3.0 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() Before giving a direction under this section, the court shall take such steps as seem practicable to ensure that the mother and the alleged father understand the nature and possible results of blood tests."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. It is to honour the principle that not only should justice be done, but that it should manifestly be seen to be done. That principle is always important, but it is perhaps particularly important in a case of this kind where a complicated scientific operation is to be carried out by means of what, in other circumstances, would rank as a physical assault upon an individual. It is not suggested by this Amendment that any elaborate, high-powered lecture on the laws of Mendelian inheritance need be given to unfortunate women in this position, or to men who are defending actions of this kind.
I think the only points that need to be made clear are, first of all, the nature of the operation itself. To women that will probably need hardly any explanation, because, as has been pointed out, a blood test is usually a matter of routine during pregnancy, and she will therefore have experienced what a trivial thing it is. But, further, I think it must be pointed out that the test may produce no result affecting the case and leave everything exactly as it was before; secondly, that it can in no circumstances establish that a particular man is the father of a particular child, and, thirdly, that in certain cases it can establish that a man is not and cannot be the father of the child. I think it should also be explained that the reason for this is that a child gets its blood grouping from its two parents and from nowhere else,
100
and that therefore a man cannot be the father of a child in whose blood is a factor which is not in either his or its mother's. That, I am sure, is as much as need be explained. Perhaps the duty to explain this will have one valuable side effect, if I may so put it. It has been suggested that there may be courts who are not apprised of the principles of Mendelian inheritance, and if the court has a duty to explain this to the parties it follows that the court will have to appreciate the essentials of the procedure itself.
Just one word as to the method by which the explanation might be given. I think it could be done by the chairman of the court. It could be done by an officer of the court or by the clerk of the court, or possibly, preferably, it could be done by a probation officer acting under the instructions of the court, because probation officers are perhaps more experienced than anybody else in this field in giving simple explanations of complicated matters to people who are not well versed in them. Or we could follow the precedent in the Act to which the noble Lady opposite referred, and which she herself sponsored in another place. Under that Act, before a child is handed to an adoption society for the purposes of adoption the mother or the parent is required to be given a document in ordinary language explaining what the effect of such an action will be. He or she is required actually to sign a statement that they have read and understood this document.
There are many alternative ways by which the necessary explanation can be given. I myself think it is best to leave this in the hands of the courts so that they may make such provision for carrying out this requirement, if it is written into the Bill, as they think fit, because the courts will have the parties before them and will be able to judge the degree of understanding. They will proceed better in that way than if some standardised procedure is imposed upon them. That would not preclude the Home Office from producing a model leaflet or formula showing what kind of information it is essential to give to the parties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I rise to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has said, and I support it strongly. In my experience over a certain number of years, to which I have already referred, I am absolutely convinced that there are many people who do not understand what is taking place unless it is explained to them in very clear language—as I put it in that Act, "ordinary language". It may be the case that the person is somewhat frightened and is in new surroundings. When a new scheme is put to her I believe she simply does not understand it. I agree with the noble Lady that perhaps it should be left to be decided what particular way is to be found, as long as we are assred that the case is made plain by those who are dealing with it, and made plain in the simplest possible language with the outline of the scheme so that they understand it. The longer I went on interviewing many unmarried mothers and working on my Report, the more convinced I became of the enormous number of cases where there was not real understanding, although perhaps on some occasion somebody when asked, "Do you really understand it?" would say, "Yes", although she did not. So I think it is of the greatest possible importance.
LORD AMULREE: This is an Amendment which I look upon with great sympathy, but I am not at all sure whether the wording is the best wording for the future. If the noble Baroness would allow me to take up her point and discuss it with Her Majesty's Government and the officials of the Home Office, I should like to see whether we can draft a better formula for this procedure, which I am sure is right and with which I have great sympathy. If the noble Lady would withdraw her Amendment, I promise to get something done before the next stage of the Bill.
EARL BATHURST: Perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I said that I am completely in agreement with what the noble Lord has said. If the noble Lady will withdraw her Amendment we shall be most pleased to look into all that she has said this afternoon. We will try to find the best method of carrying out what she would like, and I will be in touch with the noble Lord, if he will allow me.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am very appreciative of what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, have said. So long as some formula is put forward which requires a simple explanation of the essence of this procedure to be given to ordinary people, I feel extremely happy to accept it; and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
3.9 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Power of court to require blood tests without request of party
"—(1) A magistrates' court on the hearing of an application for an affiliation order under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 19:57, or a court of quarter sessions on the hearing of an appeal against such an affiliation order or against the dismissal of an application for such an order, may of its own motion give any such direction under subsection (1) of section one of the Act as it could give at the request of the alleged father.
(2) Where a court gives a direction by virtue of this section, then—

(a) unless the application for the order was not made by the mother, the mother shall pay the cost of taking and testing blood samples from the child (including any expenses reasonably incurred by any other person having the custody, charge or care of the child in taking the steps required of him for the purpose);

(b) if the application for the order was not made by the mother, the applicant shall pay the cost of taking and testing blood samples from the mother and the child (including any expenses reasonably incurred by the mother or by any other person having the custody, charge or care of the child in taking the steps required of her or him for the purpose);

but, subject to subsection (3) below, the amount paid by the mother or other applicant shall be treated as costs incurred by her or him in the proceedings.
(3) Where a court gives a direction by virtue of this section, the court may by order direct that the amount of the costs incurred by the mother or other applicant for the affiliation order or by the alleged father (or both) in respect of the taking and testing of blood samples shall he wholly or partly repaid to her or him out of local funds.
(4) Any amount directed under subsection (3) above to be paid out of local funds shall he paid out of the county fund of the administrative county or general rate fund of the county borough comprising the area for which the court making the order was acting; and sections eight, nine, eleven and twelve of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952, shall (so

103
far as they are applicable) apply in relation to orders under subsection (3) above as they apply in relation to orders under that Act."
The noble Lord said: This clause contains certain provisions which were originally in Clause 1 of the Bill, and the purpose of the new clause is to enable the court to order blood tests of its own motion: if the alleged father, the defendant, does not ask for a blood test himself, the court can do it instead. Subsection (1) gives this power, and subsection (2) deals with the payment of costs. The general principle is, I gather, that each party to proceedings in a magistrates' court meets his own costs initially, and this subsection deals only with costs which have not been covered by the general rule. Subsection (2) (a) says that unless the application is not made by the mother—I do not know whether that still stands, in view of the Amendment we have already moved; that is where the mother applies for the affiliation order—she shall pay the costs of taking and testing blood samples from the child. Most of these cases will be under the legal aid scheme, so I presume the costs would be paid by them.
The next paragraph, paragraph (b), provides that when the mother is not the applicant for the affiliation order but when the application is made by the National Assistance Board or the local authority, the applicant shall pay the costs of taking tests. I think this is only fair, because if the mother has not been a party to the proceedings she cannot be ordered to pay the costs or have costs awarded to her. Subsection (3), which is the original Clause 4 (2), provides for repayment from local funds of costs incurred in taking blood samples where the court's direction was not at the request of either party. Subsection (4) explains the meaning of "local funds" in the previous subsection, taking up and altering the definition of the original Clause 9. "Local funds" cannot, in this context, be defined simply by reference to the Costs In Criminal Cases Act, 1952, because that Act deals only with criminal proceedings and places the burden of costs on the local authority in whose area the offence was committed. In affiliation cases there is, of course, no offence, and the principle adopted is that the responsibility falls on the funds of the local authority for whom the court is acting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 1, insert the said new clause."—(Lord Amulree.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I think this new clause of the noble Lord should be accepted. I would only remind him that if he looks at his paragraph his emphasis is on the "may" and not on the "shall".
EARL BATHURST: We really have had a considerable discussion already upon the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment. Given that the noble Lord accepts the principle that it is "may" and not "shall", I have given one good reason which the noble Lord was courteous enough to agree with: that the legal aid position has made a new circumstance. But there is also another question that we should consider. A court, who ought to judge evidence which is put before it by the two parties in these civil proceedings cases, should not have the power to order a special kind of evidence of its own motion. Furthermore, that evidence can be of use to only one of those parties—in other words, the father. It would seem a wrong principle that the court should be able of its own free will to order parties to produce evidence which will not in fact benefit either of those parties fairly; it can benefit only, as I have said, the alleged father.
Then there is the question of the costs of the case. That, again, is a question of new principle. Who is to pay the costs of evidence which the court has ordered and which neither of those two parties may possibly desire? Finally there is the question of sanctions. We had a little discussion about the stupidest of stupid men. Supposing he refused to undergo the test, then the only sanction that is left to the court is to send him to prison, and it seems rather ridiculous to send a man to prison for refusing to undergo a test which could have been helpful only to the case he was putting over. For all those reasons—though possibly the new provision of legal aid is the most compelling reason—I ask your Lordships not to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD AMULREE: I am bound to say the noble Earl tries very hard to convince me of the justice and truth of what he says, but I am afraid he does not succeed

105
very well. I can see no objection; if the court wishes to have certain information before it, it seems to me only proper that the court should be able to obtain that information, even though the parties do not supply it themselves. The court might find it difficult to decide, on the evidence already given, whether the alleged father was the father of the child, and they might therefore wish a test, if the father did not ask for it himself. I agree that legal aid will make a very big difference. I think it is improbable that this power will be called in, but there is no reason why it should not be there in case there is difficulty. I wonder whether the noble Earl would look at it from that point of view, as something in the background which might be used.
EARL BATHURST: What the noble Lord is asking for is for a serious precedent to be given to the courts. We doubt that the reasons which the noble Lord has advanced for having this precedent are really essential enough or compelling enough in this particular case. Her Majesty's Government, and the Home Office in particular, have always to bear in mind what may happen as a result of precedent, and it is really a most revolutionary precedent the noble Lord is asking for. For the reasons I have given already, we do not believe such revolutionary precedents are warranted in this case.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Is not the noble Lord really asking for an inquisitorial to be substituted for an accusatorial procedure in an English court—which is indeed, as the noble Earl said, a very revolutionary departure?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause
Power to prescribe nature and conditions of blood tests, etc.
"—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the administration of this Act and the manner of giving effect to directions under section one, and in particular may make provision—

(a) for regulating the taking, identification and transport of blood samples;

(b) for prescribing the blood tests to be carried out, and the person by whom and the manner in which they may be carried out;

(c) for regulating the charges that may be made for the taking or testing of blood samples;

106

(d) for securing that in all cases the blood samples of the mother, child and alleged father are tested by the same person.

(2) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and on any proposal to make regulations for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above he shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appears to him to be requisite."
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause which takes the place of part of the original Clause 6. It is thought that some of the matters to be dealt with by rule which were listed in the original Clause 6 are within the scope of the Lord Chancellor's existing powers (as expanded in subsections (3) and (4) of the amended Clause 1) to prescribe procedural rules for magistrates' courts. I think that makes for simplification there. It is thought appropriate to have two separate powers to fill in the necessary working arrangements of the Bill because the objects of those powers are slightly different. There is first the Lord Chancellor's power to make rules for procedure in and by the court, and secondly there is the power of the Secretary of State—that is the Home Secretary—to make regulations about the actual carrying out of these tests, which will be somewhat unusual in Rules of Court. Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations for prescribing the blood tests to be carried out, to consult such persons or bodies as appear to him to be requisite. This provision replaces, in a much simpler form, the more complicated proposals for the blood test in the original 13ill. There was a good deal of doubt whether a blood test board was necessary, and I think this is a simpler way of carrying out our intentions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I welcome this Amendment because it removes the chance of impersonation. Your Lordships will recall that under the original Bill the unmarried mother was given the opportunity of going to her general practitioner because it was thought that she might be rather nervous if she went to a strange doctor. On the other hand, the man involved could go to his practitioner, and perhaps on one dark night he could take his brother

107
with him and offer his brother's or some other person's blood instead of his own. I felt then that that was most dangerous and that a new clause should be inserted which would give the power to somebody—happily, the Secretary of State has been chosen—to make regulations. I think this is highly desirable. I am most impressed with paragraph (d) which says that the blood samples of the mother, child and alleged father are to be tested by the same person. I think that is most important.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Conditions under which tests must be carried out]:
3.24 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: This is an Amendment to omit Clause 2, because the Bill, as amended, leaves the matters dealt with in this clause to be prescribed by rule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Admission of certificates in evidence]:
LORD AMULREE: This is an Amendment to leave out Clause 3, because the provisions of this clause have been taken up in subsections (3) and (4) of the amended Clause 1, or are left to be prescribed by rule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Costs]:
LORD AMULREE: This is an Amendment to leave out Clause 4. The provisions of this clause are replaced by the provisions in the amended Clause 1. No separate provisions on the lines of subsection (3) are required; the general provisions in the Bill and in the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, about costs are sufficient. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Appeals]:
LORD AMULREE: This is to leave out Clause 5. This clause has been re-
108
placed by subsection (5) of the amended Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power of Lord Chancellor to make rules]:
LORD AMULREE: This is an Amendment to leave out Clause 6. The provisions of this clause are replaced in part by the second new clause after Clause 1, which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations. The rest are covered by the existing power of the Lord Chancellor (as expanded by subsections (3) and (4) of the amended Clause 1), to make rules governing magistrates' court procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Constitution and powers of the Board]:
LORD AMULREE: This Amendment is to omit Clause 7, and this clause is omitted because it is no longer necessary. On procedural matters the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor already has the assistance of the Rule Committee. On other matters the Secretary of State will take expert advice without the need for the somewhat cumbersome apparatus of a blood tests board. Subsection (2) of the second new clause after Clause 1 requires him to do so in certain cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.31 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Enforcement of directions
".—(1) Where a court gives a direction under this Act, and the mother or any person having the custody, charge or care of the child fails without reasonable cause to take any steps required of her or him for the purpose of giving effect to the direction, the court may dismiss the application for the affiliation order or, in the case of quarter sessions, allow the appeal of the alleged father or, if he is not the appellant, dismiss the appeal.
(2) Where a court gives a direction under this Act at the request of the mother or of its own motion, and the alleged father fails without reasonable cause to take any steps required of him for the purpose of giving effect to the direction, the count may by order require him to take those steps; and as regards orders made under this subsection, subsections (1) to (3) of section fifty-four of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, shall apply to a court of quarter sessions as they apply to a magistrates' court.
(3) If for the purpose of providing a blood sample for a test required to give effect to a direction under this Act any person wilfully and fraudulently personates another, or wilfully and fraudulently proffers a child other than the child named in the direction, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term riot exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both."
The noble Lord said: This new clause contains certain provisions for enforcing the directions and orders of the court and for punishing offences. Subsection (1) empowers the court to dismiss an application for an affiliation order if the mother, or any person having custody of the child, fails without reasonable cause to comply with the direction of the court. This corresponds to the closing words of the original Clause 1 (1); but, at the same time, it incorporates a "conscience clause", so that, supposing a mother has reasonable and genuine grounds for objecting, she should not be penalised. It seems best that this should be left in general terms, rathet than that it should refer specifically to seasonable grounds that may exist for non-compliance. I feel sure that it will give the mother applying for the order full protection if there is reasonable ground.
Subsection (2) deals with the case as at present written down, where the court gives a direction other than at the request of the alleged father; but as that power has been taken away from the court I do not think one need proceed with that particular subsection. We shall be dealing with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, which is to come after, and I think we should accept that. The third subsection provides something to take the place of the original Clause 8 (2) and provides penalties for impersonation or any fraudulent depositing of the wrong child for the test. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
EARL BATHURST: As the noble Lord has quite rightly indicated, since we have moved the mother out of the Bill subsection (2) is not required; and if the noble Lord will accept that, I advise your Lordships to accept his Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In the new clause, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD AMULREE: I accept that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like a little more explanation about this new clause. I should like to know whether, if subsection (1) were not inserted in the Bill, the court would not still have power to dismiss an application for an affiliation order. It seems to me that the effect of this subsection may very well be to create in the minds of courts of summary jurisdiction a presumption that some evidence has been given which has not in fact been given. All that the court knows is that there has been a refusal, but it does not necessarily follow from that that the application is not a genuine one. Nor does it follow that it has not been amply proved without any blood test being taken. If that is so, then it seems to me that subsection (1) is entirely superfluous. I wonder whether the noble Earl who speaks for the Government has given consideration to that.
EARL BATHURST: We certainly will consider what the noble Lord has said. But as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has explained, subsection (1) gives effect to the "conscience clause", about which we had so much discussion. Also, should there be specific evidence which the court has already heard and which makes the position clear, then that court need not order the blood test. That is the point of the noble Lord's Amendment. But if there should be something in what the noble Lord opposite has said, we certainly will look into it. However, to the best of my knowledge I do not think he need have any fears.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord. Lord Amulree, said he would accept the whole of the Amendment. Certainly he should accept that part dealing with the mother. Of course, we have already argued that the mother would not request a test of this kind, but it seems to me here that

111
the noble Lord once more has fallen from grace. I have to admit that before I came here to-day I harboured all sorts of uncharitable ideas, but he has acted on so many of our requests that I am rather surprised he should include this paragraph, which, after all, again gives support to a man who is undeserving. Here, the court may ask the man to have a blood test in order to enable him to prove he is not the father. The man fails to do this. What can we deduce from that? If it is explained to the man that the result of the blood test can only be beneficial to him, because it can only be negative and say he is not the father, he must be a very curious man if he says, "I will not have this test". A man who says he will not have a test and help to prove he is not the father must be guilty or extremely careless. The presumption is that he is guilty.
Then the noble Lord says, "If he refuses the court must come along and make him have it." I feel that this is really leaning over backwards to help the man who has almost declared his own guilt. I would remind the noble Lord that there is one case in a million or perhaps less when the test can be inaccurate. Where a man has shown that he is guilty by not doing what he is asked to, it is proposed that he be compelled to have a test; but if the test were to be inaccurate that would reverse the whole position. Therefore, I certainly support the Amendment of the noble Earl. I am not quite sure whether the noble Earl's approach was the same as mine, but I certainly support his Amendment.
LORD AMULREE: I am afraid that, quite frankly, I cannot quite follow what the noble Baroness is getting at at this moment. I thought that subsection (2) of the new clause, which I have agreed with the noble Earl should be dropped—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: You are dropping the whole thing?
LORD AMULREE: Not the complete clause. But the noble Earl has moved that subsection (2) be dropped from the clause; and the removal of subsection (2) is, I think, consequential on an Amendment moved some time ago. If the father fails to comply, we have
112
taken away the power of the court to order a test, and if he fails to comply the court order would be enforceable under the provisions of Section 24 of the Magistrates' Court Act, 1952. That was the provision I was agreeing with the noble Earl should be deleted from the clause, and by that I am prepared to stand.
EARL BATHURST: I want both provisions removed from the clause. I think I did explain, did I not, that, as a result, both the independent power of the court has been taken away to a "may"—
LORD AMULREE: Yes.
EARL BATHURST: —and, as the noble Lord has already said, the mother is out of the Bill. It is the whole of that subsection (2).
LORD AMULREE: Yes.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The whole of it?
LORD AMULREE: Yes.
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Penalties]:
LORD AMULREE: This Amendment is to omit Clause 8. Subsection (1) of the clause disappears because it is not usual to make the infringement of procedural rules a criminal offence or to prescribe penalties, and there does not seem to be any necessity for such a provision. Subsection (2) is replaced by what was subsection (3) but which now presumably becomes subsection (2) of the new clause which was agreed to after Clause 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
3.43 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: May I take all these Amendments together? These are Amendments to the definitions, most of which are consequential. The first Amendment inserts a definition of "affiliation order", which is necessary because the term is given other definitions in other Statutes. The second

113
Amendment is really a drafting Amendment, to cover those cases where an application for an affiliation order is made not under the 1957 Act but under other Statutes—for instance, the National Assistance Act, 1948. The third Amendment leaves out the definitions of "approved person" and "approved testing centre", because these terms are not now in the Bill. The fourth Amendment is a drafting Amendment to remove words which, again, are no longer necessary. The fifth Amendment removes the definitions of the words "payment out of local funds" and "undergo blood tests", which are not now necessary in view of the revised drafting of Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("the expression affiliation order' means an order adjudging a man to be the putative father of a child")
Page 3,line 34, leave out ("made")
Page 3,line 34, leave out lines 36 to 43.
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("and under the rules")
Page 4, line 4,leave out lines 9 to 14.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD SILKIN: I do not propose to oppose these Amendments. I do not know enough about them, and I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's view that they are right; but I do want to draw the attention of the House to what looks to me like a considerable abuse of procedure. We gave this Bill a Second Reading on the assumption that this was the Bill we were going to deal with. I now find that, with the exception of Clause 9, every single clause has been withdrawn and that an entirely new set of clauses has been substituted. Clause 9 is the one which has not been withdrawn, and that is dealing merely with definitions and interpretations; but every other one has been withdrawn and we have had something else put in its place. I feel that that is going far beyond the proper procedure of this House. If one had known that the Bill to which we were going to give a Second Reading was going to be withdrawn and something else put in its place, I wonder whether we should really have given the noble Lord carte blanche to introduce something completely different. I do not know what we can do about it, but there ought to be some remedy, and I appeal to the Lord Chairman to tell us whether this kind of thing is quite proper and
114
in is with our procedure. If it not—or in any case—I think it is a matter which ought to go to the Procedure Committee for us to consider.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Could I just say a word on that point? This is a very small Bill which is highly technical, and it was taken, I think, late at night. Surely, this indicates that the noble Lord who introduced it is a man of high intelligence and of generous impulse. After having read Hansard and examined all the arguments which were put forward—arguments which were logical and cogent—he came to the conclusion that it should be amended in this way. We have not taken much time on this Bill, and it is one which affects a large number of very helpless women in this country. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to be a little patient, to exercise his compassion and to allow it to go through.
LORD SILIKIN: As I said at the outset, I am not opposing it, and I am sure the Committee would not wish to oppose this Bill; but I wanted to point out that it is an entirely different Bill from the one to which we gave a Second Reading.
LORD AMULREE: When I first began the Committee stage of this Bill I explained that the Bill had been changed enormously, but I think that, apart from a few points which have come in by way of these Amendments, little has been changed in the substance of the Bill. A great deal of the previous Bill has been put into a different form; but, broadly speaking, the Bill remains the same in substance, if not the same in shape, as when I introduced it on Second Reading. The only Amendments which have come in are quite proper Amendments, I think, not dealing with the fundamentals of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will accept that: that is was a change made in order to make it a tidier Bill, and not a change made to alter the whole structure.
EARL BATHURST: I wonder whether, from this side of the House, I might say that I very much sympathise with what the noble Lord opposite has said, but I assure him that as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said in no way at all has the Bill been changed from the ideas which were expressed in your Lordships' House during Second Reading. It

115
was to take note of those ideas that it has been necessary to re-write the Bill. In fact, what is now embodied in the Bill which is before your Lordships' Committee was spoken about at some length when we were considering the Bill during Second Reading. So I assure the noble Lord that in fact, I think, no great damage has been done by this method, but I do sympathise with him. Of course, had there been any revolutionary change which your Lordships had not had a chance to discuss, I am certain that such a procedure would not have been used. However, I appreciate his point of view.
LORD SILKIN: In conclusion, may I say that I raised this point, not because it was a matter of supreme importance but because I felt that we ought to be quite certain where we were going. It should not be open to any noble Lord to get a Bill approved here, and then, when it comes to Committee, to withdraw every single clause, one by one, and to put something else in their place. It may not always be as innocent as it might be in this particular case. I feel that perhaps, even in this case, if that were the intention it might have been better to have withdrawn the Bill and to have substituted a new Bill with a new face on it, with perhaps the same ideas which have been put forward by way of Amendment. I think it is a matter which ought to be looked at by the Procedure Committee. Perhaps I can arrange to give notice that that should be considered.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): Since my name has been mentioned, may I just say that I am satisfied that the procedure adopted this afternoon is in order. As to whether it is the best procedure or otherwise, I do not think it would be proper for me to express an opinion to-day, but I am satisfied that it is in order. I would remind the Committee that, of course, there is a Third Reading stage when the matter might be considered.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Extent]:
LORD AMULREE: This Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to say when the Bill shall come into operation.
116
Although I am rather sorry about this, I think there is quite a sound reason for it, because there is a good deal of procedure to be set up under the Bill, where the tests can be carried out, and so forth. Therefore, it is not quite fair to put down a certain day, when it may not in fact be possible to implement the Bill on that day. Therefore I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("on") to end of line 19 and insert ("such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.")—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

OATHS ACT, 1888 (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Its objects are to provide for an extension of the making of an affirmation, instead of taking an oath, in proceedings in a court of law, and other proceedings which come within that category, to cases where it would not be reasonably practicable to administer an oath to the witness concerned in a manner appropriate to his religious beliefs.
I think that this Bill will perform a very useful purpose, and will fill a gap in the law which, while not a very serious one, has from time to time given rise to difficulty, and is obviously tending to do so increasingly as more people come to live among us in this country whose religious beliefs entail their taking oaths, when called as witnesses or when required so to take an oath for one reason or another, which are, from the point of view of citizens in this country, rather strange and peculiar. One might say that "they are full of strange oaths", to use a quotation from Shakespeare. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for this situation. I think that in bringing forward this Bill in another place, Mr. Arthur Lewis has done a very considerable service to the administration of justice in this country. I should also like to thank the Home Office and

117
the noble Earl for their help and courtesy in this matter, and particularly for providing me substantially with the speech I propose to address to your Lordships on this particular problem.
As the Title of the Bill suggests, it is technically a Bill to amend the Oaths Act, 1888. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that that Statute, which was passed as a result of a very bitter controversy which went on in the House of Commons over the case of Bradlaugh, the famous radical politician of the nineteenth century, provided that a Member of Parliament, or indeed a person becoming a witness in a court of law and in certain other proceedings, might make an affirmation instead of taking an oath in a case where the person had no religious belief at all (which, of course, was the case of Bradlaugh) or in cases where it was contrary to the person's religious belief that he should take an oath.
The first part was obviously directed at people like Bradlaugh, who was an atheist or an agnostic, and to a growing section of the community. The other part was put into the Bill because, although Quakers and Moravians had been allowed to make affirmations, there was considerable doubt whether that w as proper according to the law; and cases which were decided afterwards in connection with other religious faiths rather suggested that those doubts were justified. So I think it was sensible and reasonable to put the second limb into this Statute. But what the Act did not do was to provide for the possibility that, although it might be perfectly right and proper for the witness to take an oath according to his religious belief, his method of taking the oath might be such that it would be quite impracticable to carry it out in any ordinarily organised court of law; or, at any rate, would lead to such delay as to hold up the whole proceedings for an appreciable period of time. It is this sort of case at which this Bill is aimed, and which has given rise to a good deal of difficulty from time to time in the courts.
Indeed, my Lords, not long after the Oaths Act was passed, there was in 1892 a case in which two Indians, one of whom was a Sikh and the other an interpreter, I think, called to interpret for him, indicated that their method of taking the oath would be a rather complicated one,
118
whereupon the Judge said, "Well, let them affirm"; and that was done. Then the case was taken on appeal to the Court of Appeal, on the ground that the oath was not within the Oaths Act because the men had a religious belief which allowed them to make an oath. The Court of Appeal said that that was so, that it was not within the Oaths Act, and it was held that the evidence had been wrongly admitted on the basis of affirmation when an oath was, in fact, possible, although not very practicable in the circumstances of that case. There was in the same year another case, in which the Aly Khan of that time was involved. In that case it was held that if a witness, while not in any way objecting to taking an oath, considered that the form in which it was offered to be administered to him did not comply with the ceremonial requirements of his religion, and therefore would not be binding on him, he could not be permitted to affirm.
From time to time in other cases, a similar position has arisen. Many of them have been cases in which Sikhs have been involved, because their method of taking an oath is a complicated and unusual one. In one of these cases, which came before a magistrates' court only two or three years ago, a prisoner, when called upon to give evidence as a witness, said that he was willing to take an oath upon the Sikh sacred book, the Granth; but as there was not a copy available he was allowed to affirm. This is rather surprising, in view of the decision in the earlier case, but I suppose that the magistrates were not aware of it. He was allowed to affirm, but the evidence which he gave was regarded as being perjured evidence. On this he was indicted for perjury, but it was held that he was not properly indicted, because the evidence which he had given ought to have been given on the Sikh oath and not by affirmation as he was not within the liberty of making an affirmation, which was conferred by the Act of 1888.
My Lords, those cases are not isolated. There was another case at Manchester Assizes in 1940, to which I need not refer in detail; and fairly recently there was a case referred to in legal journals. That again involved a Sikh, who gave evidence by placing the Granth on a cushion in court, with two

119
cows' tails, one on each side of the Granth, which in his view was the correct way of taking an oath according to the Sikh religion. To put a court into the state of having to provide a copy of the Granth, a cushion and two cowtails, would almost invariably lead to considerable delay, and obviously the procedural requirements of English courts could not be conducted on the basis that the authorities at the courts should be required to make provision for all possible varieties of the taking of oaths which must exit, not only in the countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations but all over the world. So it will obviously be a great convenience, in this type of case, to enable an affirmation to be made instead of insisting that an oath be taken.
But the matter goes further than that. Obviously, the law as it stands at present provides the possibility of a man evading the need to give evidence by saying that the particular ceremonial which the court is providing for him is not one which his sect of religion requires, and that if he takes an oath in this form it will not be binding on him. In that way a man may escape altogether from giving evidence in a case in which his evidence might be materially vital. Therefore, it has been felt not only that it is necessary to enable an affirmation to be made in a case of this kind but also that the law should go further and require of a witness that he should make an affirmation in this type of case. The Bill which is before your Lordships this afternoon takes that further step.
That, in substance, is what is in the Bill. Perhaps I ought to draw your Lordships' attention shortly to the two clauses which it contains. The main operative provisions of the Bill are contained in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1. Subsection (1) provides that a person to whom it is not reasonably practicable to administer an oath in the manner appropriate to his own religious belief may be allowed to make an affirmation instead. The expression "reasonably practicable" is defined later on in subsection (2). The Oaths Act, 1888, and consequently the amendments to it made by this Bill, apply to the taking of an oath or to the making of an affirmation in all places and for all purposes where an oath is or shall be
120
required by the law. Consequently, the effect of this Bill is not restricted to oaths taken in courts of law but is, as I indicated earlier on, wider in its application.
Subsection (2) provides that a person may be permitted to affirm instead of to take an oath, if it is not reasonably practicable for him to be sworn in accordance with his own religious beliefs. This is necessary, as I have explained for otherwise a reluctant witness might evade giving evidence by claiming that some ceremonial, which is essential to the oath which he was proposing to take, could not be complied with in the circumstances of that particular day and occasion. The term "reasonably practicable" is defined here as meaning "reasonably practicable without inconvenience or delay." There is a subsection (3), which brings in the Army and Air Force Acts, 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act, 1957. These Acts, in fact, permit affirmation, but do not go on to give the courts power to insist on affirmation in the sort of cases I have explained, and it is felt that it would be valuable to extend that power to cases falling under these Acts.
Clause 2 contains the Short Title and citation. The Bill applies to Scotland, and while it does not, in terms, extend to Northern Ireland generally (because it deals with a matter which is within the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland), it deals with two points in which the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland are restricted—that is, in relation to courts-martial and to matters provided by Section 18 (2) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which relates to oaths taken by Members of Parliament—Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. It has been felt that these two points ought to be brought within the present Bill. Naturally, the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland has been obtained to this course being taken. I hope that I have said enough to enable your Lordships to feel that this is a very useful measure, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord opposite for the kind remarks he made with regard

121
to the Home Office. I would commend the Bill to your Lordships and ask your Lordships to support the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in giving it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RESTRICTION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT, 1959 (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act became law in May, 1959, and it has, I believe, been largely successful in removing the danger of these flick knives, particularly from young children. At the time when the original Bill was drafted it was thought by lawyers and non-lawyers alike that its wording covered all possible eventualities concerning the sale or hire, or offer for sale or hire, of these knives. However, in November of last year an interesting decision was reached in a case where a shopkeeper was prosecuted for exposing in his window a flick knife, with a ticket on it marked, "Ejector knife—4s."
When this case came before the Queen's Bench Divisional Court the question was whether this exhibiting of the flick knife with a price label on it constituted an offer for sale within the meaning of Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959. This section reads:
"Any person who manufacturers, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a 'flick knife' or 'flick gun' … shall be guilty of an offence".
I will not bother your Lordships by reading out in full the words of the Lord Chief Justice, as printed in The Times of November 11, but will merely refer to the salient point. This was that the law of contract of this country says that the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to trade and not an offer for sale. This means,
122
in fact, that a shopkeeper may expose an article for sale with a price tag upon it but, according to the law, is not bound to sell it. Since the 1959 Act does not use the words "exposed for the purpose of sale", the shopkeeper in this particular case was found not guilty. It is to rectify this omission that the Bill has been introduced.
Another difficulty which has arisen, and which was pointed out by the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, is that since the Act does not extend to Northern Ireland it is possible for these weapons to be imported into Northern Ireland and then brought into this country. This does not constitute the importation which is prohibited by Section 1 (2) of the Act. At the request of the Northern Ireland Government, it was therefore suggested by Her Majesty's Government that the new clause relating to Northern Ireland be included in this Bill. I hope that this House will accept that these provisions are necessary, and that the Bill will now receive your Lordships' undivided support. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Morris of Kenwood.)
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord and his honourable friend in another place upon introducing this Bill, and I can assure your Lordships that the Bill will close the gap in the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959, to which the noble Lord referred. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I would mention that your Lordships might be interested to see the selection of these offensive weapons which is now in the Library of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. In commending the Bill to your Lordships, I think I should say a few words in an endeavour to clarify what, at first sight, may seem rather complicated provisions. This Bill is a useful

123
one, and it deals with a subject of some importance to those members of the public who travel by air. It is an unusual Bill, in that it has one Schedule in French, and there is an English translation attached to the Schedule, The Bill is primarily' a ratification Bill. It seeks to enact into the law of this country the Hague Protocol of 1955, which amends the Warsaw Convention of 1929 relating to international carriage by air. In those circumstances, it might be useful if I first referred to some of the Articles of the Warsaw Convention and the amending Protocol set out in the First Schedule.
The intention of the old original Warsaw Convention was to unify the domestic law of the different high contracting States which related to carriage by air and particularly in respect of the carrier's liability for his passengers and his liability for freight, and to unify documentary procedure between the different States. The original Warsaw Convention was embodied in the British Carriage By Air Act, 1932, and under the Convention a carrier's liability in respect of passengers was limited to a sum equivalent to about £3,000. His liability in respect of freight was limited to a sum equivalent to about £2 10s. per lb. avoirdupois weight, in the absence of any special declaration of value. But under the Convention, both passengers and consignors received two valuable benefits. First, in the event of their suffering accident or loss, they could sue for damages in the courts of their own country, regardless of the fact that such damage or loss may have occurred in a foreign aeroplane travelling over a foreign country, provided, of course, that the aeroplane itself was operated by a nation who was party to the Convention. The second benefit that passengers and consignors received was the fact that the onus of proof was transferred from the claimant to the carrier. The carrier would have to prove that he had not been negligent, and the claimant would not have to prove that the carrier had been negligent. While I am not a lawyer, I think that is in conflict with the normal practice at Common Law in our courts.
The change in liability introduced by the Hague Protocol of 1959, which this Bill seeks to make law, is quite simply
124
to double the maximum liability of air carriers in respect of their passengers: that is to say, to raise it from about £3,000 to about £6,000. It makes no change of liability in respect of freight. In the First Schedule of the Bill, Articles 17 to 24 set out the general circumstances of the carrier's liability, and Article 22 defines the limits of liability precisely. The 250,000 French francs referred to have nothing to do with the current new French franc: they refer to an obsolete franc, the old gold franc; but sufficient to say that 250,000 francs in those francs are the equivalent of about £6,000.
It may be suggested that £6,000 is a fairly modest limit on liability for a passenger's life, but there is nothing which we who support and sponsor this Bill can do about that. The £6,000 figure was the one negotiated at the Hague Conference: it may be that some delegates to the Conference would have preferred a higher figure of liability and that others would have preferred a lower one. It may be that there was an element of compromise about the £6,000. All we who support this Bill can do is to recommend the Hague Protocol as it stands. We have no power whatever to suggest amendments to detail of the Protocol now that it has been published. The fact that the Hague Protocol makes no change in the carrier's liability for freight meets, I think, the wishes of both carriers and their consignors. I understand that the consignors prefer to take a fairly low basic limit of damages which they can claim in the event of loss, because it tends to keep freight rates low; and there is nothing in the Hague Protocol, or in this Bill, which would prevent any consignor from striking a special bargain with his carrier, possibly by paying a slightly increased freight rate and getting extra cover. I think that is general practice.
Articles 3 to 16 of the First Schedule deal with documentation. I mentioned that the original Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought, among other things, to unify the documentary procedure between international airlines. Documents tend to be visible evidence of a contract, and it is helpful if the procedure for handling them and the form of the documents is uniform, fairly simple and standardised, to some extent, between all international airlines. These

125
Articles in the Schedule set out the minimum basic requirements for documents, whether they be air-passenger tickets, baggage checks or air cargo weigh-bills.
Articles 25 and 25A in the First Schedule are important. Article 25 describes the circumstances in which a carrier's limit of liability may exceed £6,000. I think it would be a very rare set of circumstances now, and one that would demand an element of wilful misconduct—which in law is considerably stronger, of course, than negligence, or even recklessness. It would be a difficult thing to prove in the courts. Article 25A gives a carrier's agent or servant the same protection under the amended Convention as the carrier himself receives. I think this Article was inserted to deal with an anomaly which had existed under the old Convention. It is possible that, though carriers themselves had a limit of liability, their servants and agents did not do so, so there might have been some limitation under the old Convention for a claimant to sue not the carrier but the carrier's servant or agent. It was felt that the position was unjust. I do not know if it ever occurred, but this particular Article tries to put that anomalous position right.
All the points I have discussed so far are dealt with in the different Articles,of the First Schedule, which sets out the terms of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol. I should like now to turn to consider some of the clauses of the Bill itself. At the present time, the unamended Convention has the force of law in Britain. It was amended in the Carriage by Air Act, 1942. Now that an International Conference has sat at The Hague to bring the original Convention up to date, particularly in the light of money values, it surely seems sensible that our country should be ready to co-operate, too. I say "ready" because the new Protocol does not come into force until 30 States have ratified it, and so far only about 18 have done so. It is thought, nevertheless, that fairly soon 30 will have ratified. I think it is urgent that we, too, in this country should ratify the Protocol. This Bill seeks to enable Her Majesty's Government to do just that by incorporating the amended Convention in our law, and Clause 1 is the relevant clause.
126
As your Lordships will see, there are other clauses in the Bill. Most of them are fairly clear, and tend to explain themselves. But there are two clauses to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. Clause 10 is important in that it seeks to apply the provisions of the amended Convention to domestic air travel—that is to say, air travel within the United Kingdom, or between the United Kingdom and its Colonies and dependencies. It may be suggested that here again a £6,000 limit of liability for a carrier is too low. It may be asked: even if we have to accept that figure in regard to international air journeys, need it be accepted for domestic journeys? I do not, however, think that that criticism is altogether valid.
Clause 10 of the Bill says that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, apply the amended Convention to domestic travel. The clause in no way fetters the discretion of the Minister concerned. He may apply the amended Convention, or he may presumably apply any other items he thinks fit. My own view is that he would be wise to apply the provisions of the amended Convention. This is not a new principle, because the original Warsaw Convention was applied by the Air Navigation Order, 1953, to domestic air carriage, and I am inclined to think that no serious anomalies would arise if we had one limit of liability for passengers travelling in the United Kingdom, and another limit of liability for carriers in respect of their passengers travelling on international routes. Surely some balance in equity should be struck between carriers and their customers. If a carrier's possible liability is placed very high—not just a limit of £6,000, but a limit of £20,000, or even £30,000—he would have to cover himself by increasing fares; and I think that the, majority of air travellers would prefer, a cheaper fare in return for lower damages in the event of their suffering accident or loss, or even death. But if particular passengers feel very strongly about this matter, the most sensible course for them to take is for them to take out a small insurance policy to give them any excess cover they require. These very simple policies can now be bought at all the airports and they cost, I think, about 2s. per £1,000 cover for 24 hours.

127
I would refer your Lordships to Clause 13, which seeks to apply all provisions of the amended Convention to the Crown. I understand that the Crown has never been bound by the original Warsaw Convention. It seems right that the Government, when acting as an air carrier, should be as much bound as private operators are. Some of your Lordships may remember, if you have travelled by Government aircraft on Government business, that you have been asked to sign a paper acknowledging that the Government do not accept unlimited liability for you as a passenger. I have not seen the paper myself, but I understand it says it accepts no liability. It is giving you a free passage. Whether the possession of such signatures will exonerate the Government in law I cannot say, but this clause in the Bill seeks to regularise a position which has in the past been confused and unsatisfactory. Finally, I would mention Clause 7 (2) which excludes purely military aircraft from the terms of the Convention. I do not mean just fighters and bombers; I mean transports.
My Lords, I think I have said enough to outline the main purpose and aims of this Bill. At the risk of some oversimplification, I might summarise them in this way. The main purpose of the Bill is to incorporate with the law of this country the provisions of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955 relating to international carriage by air. The main feature of the amending Protocol is to raise the limit of liability of air carriers in respect of their passengers from about £3,000 to about £6,000. Air travellers are, I think, largely unaware of their rights at law in the event of their being unfortunate enough to have an accident in an aircraft. I must say that I do not think the airline operators go out of their way to explain to their customers what their rights are.
I should like to quote from a notice on a recent airline ticket. This is what it says:
"Subject to the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and Orders made thereunder, passengers, their luggage and belongings are carried on the terms contained in the Corporation's General Conditions of Carriage, Regulations, Timetables and Notices, which may be inspected at the Corporation's offices."
128
Should a passenger decide, on reading such a notice, to go to the carrier's office, my guess is that he would be shown a very long schedule of notices in very small print, and by the time he had read and understood what his rights were in the event of an accident he would have missed his plane in any case. Air travellers will be wise, I think, to remember that if they initiate a claim against a carrier at the moment, the damages will normally be limited to £3,000. If this Bill is passed, and the new Convention ratified, the limit of damages will be raised to £6,000. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Abinger.)
4.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is an important Bill, much more important, I think, than the Government have realised; and notwithstanding the amount of business that is still to come before the House, I should like to take up a few minutes, not in attempting to harry the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, who, like myself, is a layman, but to put some responsibility on the Government in this matter. The first question I would ask is why a Bill ratifying an international Convention should have to wait for the initiative of a Private Member in another place and then of the noble Lord in this House to bring it into effect. In this country we have always had the view that, however slow other Governments were in ratifying international treaties and conventions, we were never one of the sinners. But although 18 countries have ratified it, the first move towards this is from a Private Member in another place. This seems to me to be really an intolerable thing. It is not for me to comment on the proceedings in another place, but they are short enough of Private Members' time there without having to take it up with what can only be described as Government business.
This is not intended to be a reflection on the merits of the Bill, which I warmly support, or on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, but I would draw attention to the fact (I do this with some embarrassment, because the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, told me last week that this Bill was coming forward) that it appeared on the Order Paper on Thursday and we are giving it its Second

129
Reading on Tuesday. There are some important principles of a legal kind, and I should have thought we needed the help of some Government lawyers. The noble and learned Viscount is not on the Woolsack to help us. My noble friend, Lord Chorley, will, I am sure, help us. There are some questions I should like to ask, and if the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, feels it is unfair for him to answer them, then I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, as Government spokesman, will be able to guide the House.
The first question I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, is why we have had to wait five years for this Bill, and I am almost tempted, if it would not have been out of order, to ask how many other treaties there are waiting for action by the Government to be ratified. The arguments in favour of the Convention and of the Bill, which have been so very clearly deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, are quite overwhelming. It is highly desirable that the £3,000 should be raised to £6,000. The change in the time limit for making claims in respect of damage to property also represents an improvement.
I would take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger: it is a fact that the general public have absolutely no idea of the extent of this Convention. There are large numbers of people who probably insure themselves under the impression that there is nothing coming, anyway, if they are killed, and there may be others who have inflated ideas of the damages it may be possible in the last resort to get out of a carrier. I would suggest that we ought to consider at Committee stage perhaps putting in an Amendment requiring that some sort of intelligible digest is displayed in airports of the application of the Convention so far as passengers are concerned. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me whether that is done. It would seem to me to be right. We take great trouble in regard to the Factories Acts to make sure that workers in factories know certain conditions, and again in the shops and other places wages council orders are displayed. I see no reason why, in this country at any rate, the Ministry should not take steps to see that the relative provisions are drawn to the attention of the public.
I am a little bothered, as possibly other noble Lords are, by the existence
130
of a French section to this Bill. I realise that we cannot amend it, even if we could understand it, because it is part of the Protocol, but here I am a little bothered also by the fact that certain sections of the Protocol defining the High Contracting Parties are missing. I imagine they are available in the Library, but since this French text is included with the admirable object of producing a comprehensive Bill—and again I congratulate the sponsors on having put the French text into the Bill—I am wondering whether in fact we ought not to republish the whole Convention. There may be a reason why that should not be done.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, said about the application to the Crown. I am not quite clear how far the Government can, by Order under this Bill, in fact avoid the application to the Crown. It seems to me that there are clauses which we shall be examining on Committee stage under which in fact it will be possible to avoid the application to the Crown. If this point can be dealt with, then I am delighted to think that in future we shall no longer be called on to sign blood chits; the difficulty about getting insurance if we are flying in a Service aircraft will not apply, and we shall be safe for £6,000, or whatever the figure will be if it is altered in the future.
As I understand it, this Bill and the Convention will apply only to those countries which are signatories and which ratify the Convention. But there is provision in Clause 10 by which the Minister can, by Order, make the terms of the Convention, with suitable modification, applicable not only to countries which are not parties to the Convention but also to internal travel. Although I appreciate that this has been the practice since the 1952 Air Navigation Order, it seems to me to raise important issues to which we in this House ought to give some attention. Is it right, with the increasing amount of internal air travel, with the large number of operators who are coming into the field, that liability should be limited as it is now to £3,000, and as it will be when this is ratified, to £6,000? Equally, would it not be possible for the Minister not to wait for the Convention to be ratified but immediately to raise the limit, by Order, so far as internal travel in con-

131
cerned? Again, this is not a matter on which we can discuss the extent to which the subject was debated in another place, but it is quite apparent that, following the narrow balance on a particular decision there, it was expected that we in this House would do something to clarify some of the difficulties which were then raised.
I think we should properly accept that the level for insurance of freight should be that in the Convention. It is perfectly possible for individuals to increase that insurance, to take on special insurance in regard to valuable freight; and there is no reason why that should be spread over all those who wish to send freight by air, which would happen if the level were raised. But I cannot for the life of me see why, so far as internal travel in this country is concerned, in regard to passengers the limit should be only £3,000 or £6,000. This seems to me to be carrying international tidiness rather too far. We know that if somebody in civilian life is killed in an accident where negligence can be established—there are limitations again in certain directions—the damages may be much higher. Before the application of the 1932 Convention and the 1952 Air Navigation Order I understand that the airlines proceeded by way of ex gratia payments. I do not know whether they were smaller or larger than the amounts that are at present proposed. But if this is to be done, and if we are to give power to the Government to do this sort of thing—that is what we are doing—I think it ought to be done not by Order but by the Bill itself.
Your Lordships are as well aware as I am that there are difficulties in dealing with Orders; they are not susceptible of amendment. Yet in Clause 10 we are proposing to give great powers to the Minister, which I admit he has had in the past and which he exercised in the 1952 Air Navigation Order. But this is an opportunity, I should have thought, to deal with it properly in legislation. Again, if I may say so, it is through the negligence of the Government that we have had to wait all this time and only due to the energy of the Private Members concerned that we have had an opportunity to discuss this subject.
I hope this Bill will not go through too quickly on Committee stage. I hope
132
we shall have the benefit of some legal advice on these points. In particular, I should like to know how far certain changes which the Bill introduces and which were not contained in the original Convention ought to be the subject possibly of some additional schedule or protocol to the Hague Convention. For instance, I believe that in Clause 5 there is a provision by which certain liability in terms of time is extended to carriers' servants or agents. That was not in the original Convention. It was explained by the mover of the Bill that no doubt this had been overlooked at The Hague. But ought it not now to be made of general application? Will this have validity, or shall we not be putting our own nationals at a disadvantage in this matter? Will the agents and servants of British carriers still be exposed in foreign countries? These are all matters of a kind on which certainly I am not competent to express an opinion, but on which, none the less, before this Bill passes into law we ought to have some advice and help from the Government.
4.47 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to follow up some of the remarks which have just fallen from my noble friend Lord Shackleton with regard to this matter. In the first place, I should like to support what he said in congratulation of the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon and of Mr. Ronald Bell who brought it forward in another place. This is a most important Bill. It deals with a rapidly developing area of transport which is of the greatest importance to hundreds of thousands of people, their lives and limbs, and also to the transporting of a great deal of exceedingly valuable merchandise.
This is one of the most important transport Bills that has ever been before Parliament, and I entirely agree with Lord Shackleton that it is quite inexcusable that the Government should have allowed it, so to speak, to stand still for all this period of time. The sum of £3,000 as the maximum that a person can recover under the rules as they stand at present is quite ridiculous in the light of the depreciation in currency which has been taking place since the end of the war. After the Convention in relation to increasing the figures in the Merchant Shipping Act had been agreed,

133
the Government acted with great promptitude and vigour to get that Bill on to the Statute Book three or four years ago. Why they should have taken this extraordinarily dilatory attitude in regard to this particular matter passes comprehension. It is true, in a way, that shipping is much more important to us than air travel. But air travel is becoming more and more important, and the lives and the valuable property of the people who use air travel ought not to be dealt with in this cavalier fashion, with the whole business ignored in this way.
I suggest to your Lordships that a Bill of this importance and complexity is not suitable to be dealt with as a Private Member's Bill. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said on this particular point. This is a Bill of outstanding importance; and, much as one admires the initiative shown by Mr. Bell, in another place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, here, that does not, I think, in any way excuse the Government for taking up this supine attitude in regard to this matter.
My Lords, I have always felt that a mistake was made with the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, in introducing this limitation policy at all. It is a policy of very dubious wisdom. It has, of course, been used in connection with sea transport for some hundreds of years, but this country introduced it only after very considerable delay and doubt in the eighteenth century because provisions of this kind had been put upon the Statute Book by our great carrying rivals, the Dutch and Hansa towns, in the early seventeenth century; and that was followed by the French. Eventually, in order to protect our own interests, to protect our own shipowners and carriers by sea, we had to follow suit. But there is obviously a very great deal to be said against limitation rules of this kind, because they mean that the right of a man to recover against the transporter is seriously curtailed. While the noble Lord is no doubt right to say that in respect of personal injury it is possible to take out an effective policy of insurance to get more, assuming that you think about it, that does not, of course, apply to insurance of goods, because that is an indemnity insurance, and the insurance company with which
134
you are insured is entitled to stand in your shoes in regard to claims against the air transporter who is carrying the goods. The difference between an insurance of goods, which is an indemnity contract, and an insurance of life, which is not, is of course well known to lawyers. It seems to me that it is rather unfortunate that limitation has been extended in this way.
I would remind your Lordships that, in regard to carriage by railway and other forms of land transport, there has never been any question of introducing this. A man who is carried by British Railways and who is injured in a railway accident is entitled to full compensation, and will get very heavy compensation indeed. In the old days, juries awarded very heavy damages in cases of this kind: and in recent cases some outstanding damages have been awarded by Judges—in my recollection, three or four times as much as the new maximum obtainable for a man who goes by air and is injured instead of going by railway and having the misfortune to be injured in a railway accident. That, of course, applies to carriage in coaches and all sorts of other forms of transportation by land.
Why should there be this difference? Because, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, says, this international limitation of liability has been introduced into internal transport by air in this country by the Minister's Regulation of 1952. I confess that I do not remember its going through. I feel a certain sense of shame at not having noticed it at the time and at not having protested against it. I think that this is very much one of the matters which ought to be gone into in the Committee stage. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said, while we may be giving, and are very ready and anxious to give, this Bill a good reception in general terms, there are quite a number of points in regard to which we ought, I think, if we do our duty effectively, to pay very close and careful consideration when we come to the Committee stage.
One such point was referred to by my noble friend Lord Shackleton: it is in. Clause 5, which introduces a new limitation period to protect the servants and agents of the carrier. There has been a, great deal of cutting down of limitation

135
periods during my time in the law, which has resulted in an extraordinarily complicated situation, so that it is very difficult for an ordinary practising lawyer to carry all these limitations periods in his head. And here we are proposing to introduce another one by Clause 5. Why should it be in one case two years, and in another case six years, or in another case some other period? And it is a very short period in terms of enforcing a legal obligation. It is easy for two years to slip away before the parties have realised that the time has gone. If the writ is not issued within the time limit, then the right is lost altogether. So, there again, I think we ought to pay careful attention to this matter.
Of course, there is this point which I have already discussed and which my noble friend Lord Shackleton has emphasised: the question of whether it is really in the interest of the citizens of this country as a whole that we should continue this limitation policy, which was initiated in 1952, in regard to inland air transport. There are, of course, arguments on the other side, but I think that they would be much better made and dealt with when we come to deal with the Bill clause by clause at the Committee stage. As your Lordships have a great deal more work before you this evening, I will not pursue the topic any further than to say that, subject to the points I have indicated, I welcome the Bill.
4.58 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, may I say a word in support of what my noble friends Lord Shackleton and Lord Chorley have said? This is a most important Bill affecting the liabilities of all the air companies. In so far as there is an International Convention to raise the limit of liability from £3,000 to £6,000 it is excellent to give it the force of law in this country, and I am glad that it was a former pupil of mine who brought this Bill forward in another place. But the important clause in the Bill, towards the end, is concerned with how an Order in Council can be made by a Minister here, applying it to inland transportation by air, which in effect is a limitation which the airlines can put on limiting liability to £6,000 for any individual. That is far less than would be recovered in an accident in any other
136
form of transport. It is done by Order in Council. Under our ordinary law, if a contract is to be made limiting liability there has to be fair and reasonable notice of it in the contract. Indeed, there have been many complaints as to the way in which notice is given.
As the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, said, would it not be a good thing in regard to contracts for air transport at least to ensure that the limitations of liability are publicly known and notified, so that people can see there is a need to insure themselves further and be apprised of the position? Indeed this Bill, affecting as it does the liability of airline companies throughout international transport, and which can be applied by Order of a Minister to inland transport, certainly needs careful scrutiny. But it must be much welcomed. The limitation of servants' liability to a period of time of two years, less than our ordinary period of three years, also needs scrutiny. Whether they can be limited in liability, I do not know. So, while welcoming the Bill, I would suggest that it needs very careful consideration.
5.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wish first, on behalf of the Government, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Abinger on the way in which he moved the Second Reading of this important Bill. It is a somewhat complicated one, as a number of your Lordships have mentioned. Not being a lawyer, I must confess that I have found parts of it not particularly easy to understand. I am sure that those Members of your Lordships' House who, like me, are not altogether at home with legal language, will be grateful to my noble friend for the clarity of his exposition. He has explained the purposes of the Bill so clearly and comprehensively that he leaves me, I hope, very little to do. For this, I am duly grateful. Further, I feel I am right in expressing your Lordships' gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his contribution to this debate this afternoon.
The object of this Bill, as my noble friend has explained, is to enable Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to ratify the Hague Protocol of 1955 by giving effect to the Warsaw Convention of 1929 as amended by the Protocol. The amended Convention is

137
attached as the First Schedule to the Bill now before your Lordships. The original Warsaw Convention of 1929, which at present governs international carriage by air, was given effect to by being embodied in a Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932. That Act will be repealed and replaced by the present Bill if and when it is enacted and comes into force. As your Lordships know, the present Bill has already received a Third Reading in another place.
Before turning to the Bill itself, I should first like to deal with a point made by a number of speakers in this debate: was it appropriate for this important Bill, covering (as it were) an International Convention, to be introduced into Parliament by a Private Member rather than by the Government? It is true that the 1932 Act began its life as a Government Bill; but, my Lords, it seems perfectly fitting to the Government that this Bill should have been introduced by a Private Member. It is undoubtedly an important piece of legislation, but many important Bills have been introduced in both Houses of Parliament by Private Members. The Bill before your Lordships to-day undoubtedly also deals with an International Convention, but, so far as I know, there is no convention (of another sort) that Private Members should not introduce Bills of this nature. Indeed, there is a very recent precedent in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, which gave effect to the Brussels Maritime Convention of 1957 on shipowners' liability. Moreover, in so far as this particular Bill touches closely the rights and liabilities of individuals and commercial enterprises, it seems peculiarly fitting that it should have been introduced in this way.
I must say that this particular line has somewhat surprised me, seeing how jealous Members of Parliament justly are of the rights and responsibilities of Private Members, and in view of the fact that, so far as I know, a Private Member's Bill has constitutionally no less weight and no less authority than a Government Bill. Another reason why I have been surprised by this particular line is because of the Godparents of this particular Bill in another place. They included, from the Party opposite, Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas, Sir Frank Soskice and Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas—a Front
138
Bench spokesman and two former Law Officers.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Why is he picking on "the Party opposite"? This is not a Party issue at all. The matter was raised from both sides, and not just the Opposition.
EARL JELLICOE: I am dealing merely with your Lordships' debate this afternoon. In this House this afternoon the point has been made, so far as I know, only from the opposite Benches, and I was merely referring to the fact that what was good enough for two former Law Officers in another place is apparently not good enough for the. Benches opposite here to-day.
May I now turn to the reasons why your Lordships are being asked, as I understand it, to give this Bill a Second Reading? The first reason, as I see it, is a negative one. The amended Convention is due to come into force under the provisions of Article 22 of the Hague Protocol when it is ratified by 30 States; and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the reason why the Government have not acted up till now is that 30 ratifications are required and, so far, only 17 or 18 have been obtained. Up to now, therefore, there really has not been this vast degree of urgency attached to ratification. However, it has now been ratified by 18 Governments, or 17 if the German Democratic Republic is excluded—which, as your Lordships know, we do not recognise. The ratifying Governments include countries like the Soviet Union, France, Australia and the Netherlands, which are important in the international civil aviation field.
The President of United States has recently recommended ratification to the United States Senate. It is not for me to predict what the United States Senate will do about it, as its ways, like the ways of your Lordships' House, are sometimes a little inscrutable. However, if we are realistic, I think we can be fairly certain that if and when the Americans do ratify the Convention a lot of other States are likely to follow suit possibly enough to bring the amended Convention into force. Should it come into force without the United Kingdom being a party to it, we might find ourselves in a pretty awkward position. Take, for example, the North

139
Atlantic air route—possibly the most important air route in the world. If the United States ratify the Protocol and we do not, the question would arise whether carriage between this country and the United States would be governed by the provisions of the original Convention, of the amended Convention or of no Convention at all. I leave it to your Lordships to imagine the chaos which would result from the litigation in either or both countries—or, indeed, in a third country—unless some answer to that question could be found.
The other main reason why the Government support this Private Member's Bill is a more positive one. It is because we feel that the new Convention has definite advantages over the old Warsaw Convention of 1929. It is therefore to our positive advantage to ratify it, and thus to encourage other Governments to do it. Of course, like all International Conventions, this is a product of a good deal of give-and-take. From our point of view, it may not in all respects be ideal, but it does have clear advantages, the Government feel, over the earlier Convention. I think that those advantages have been fully rehearsed by my noble friend Lord Abinger in introducing this Bill. I do not think I need say anything from the Government's point of view about what I may call the subsidiary advantages.
I should just like to dwell for a moment on what we consider to be the most important advantage, as my noble friend made clear: that is that Article 22 of the new Convention doubles the maximum liability of the carrier from about £3,000 to about £6,000 in the case of the injury or death of a passenger. Some of your Lordships may feel that a maximum liability of some £6,000 is not sufficient: that many of your Lordships' lives and limbs are worth a lot more than that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, tended to query the whole principle of the limitation of liability. I should just like to explain that, as I understand it, the principal reason for limiting liability in such a case is that, but for some limitation, the less valuable passenger in an aircraft would find that he or she was paying a part of his or her fare for the insurance of the airline against the enormous potential liability
140
of other, more valuable passengers—like Miss Sophia Loren or, indeed, one of your Lordships. An incidental advantage is that a reasonable limit results in the avoidance of litigation, because the airlines and their underwriters are usually willing to dispose of the case by paying the limitation sum. At the same time, the Convention requires a passenger to be warned that liability may be limited, so that he has every opportunity of taking out any additional insurance which he thinks is necessary to cover his or her particular circumstance.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made the point that it might be very desirable, when (I hope it is a case of "when") the amended Convention comes into force, that its main provisions should be well publicised at airports. I shall be very glad to bring that suggestion to the notice of my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation, but I would express some slight scepticism as to whether the average air traveller, rushing for his aeroplane, would spend very long in studying the detailed provisions of this very complicated Convention. However, I am sure the suggestion has merit, and I shall be glad to convey it to my right honourable friend.
So much for the Convention itself, my Lords. In the interests of brevity, I should like to confine my remarks on the Bill to a couple of points of substance. The first concerns subsection (2) of Clause 1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, which provides that, in the event of any inconsistency, the French text scheduled in the Bill shall prevail over the English one. There are, of course, many precedents for this in International Conventions. What is different in this Bill is that it actually schedules the French as well as the English text. To those of your Lordships who have an antiquarian bias, there will be nothing specially unusual about this. The early Statutes of Parliament were, as your Lordships know, in Latin, but during the second half of the thirteenth century, French was used as often as Latin, and after 1310 much more often. However, my researches, such as they are, seem to show that there appears to be no instance since 1485 of an Act, or part of an Act, appearing in the French language. The last was an Act of 1484, annulling the

141
letters patent made to Eliza, wife of Sir Joseph Grey.
Why, in this instance, have we reverted to this somewhat earlier precedent? I think the explanation is quite simple. It is to enable lawyers and their clients to have immediate access to the French text. It would appear that if the French text had not been scheduled, courts of law would still have referred to it, but there would then have been the disadvantage that it would not have been readily available as part of the Act. But, that said, I should like to make it quite clear that this is an exceptional circumstance and is by no means to be regarded as a precedent for the scheduling of all future Conventions.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a second? He said that the French text would be followed at law. I may be wrong, but with regard to Article 13, subsection (2), the French text and the English text do not seem to have exactly the same meaning. For example, one is the question of "stipulation", and the other the question of "agreement". As I understand French, when you stipulate something, there is no question of previous agreement.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that sometimes there are inconsistencies, or may be inconsistencies, between the French and the English texts. It is precisely for that reason that there is a master text, as it were.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say which prevails?
EARL JELLICOE: The French.
LORD LATHAM: Notwithstanding that the claim arises here?
EARL JELLICOE: Notwithstanding. Finally, I come to Clause 10, to which a number of noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Chorley and Lord Denning, have referred. This clause replaces section 4 of the 1932 Act, with two principal changes. It enables the rules of the Convention to be extended not only to non-international carriage, as under the 1932 Act, but to any carriage not covered by the Convention. This would include carriage free of charge by someone other than an airline—for example, in Crown
142
aircraft, as my noble friend has explained. Secondly, under Clause 10 an Order in Council is required to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and will be subject to Affirmative Resolutions. This is also an innovation and, I am sure your Lordships will agree, an improvement.
Some speakers in another place, and indeed some of your Lordships here, have been inclined to question Clause 10 on the ground that it could limit the maximum liability of the domestic carrier on a domestic flight to the maximum of about £6,000. Indeed, as your Lordships probably know, another place divided on this matter, with two Members voting both ways. I do not wish at this stage to argue the pros and cons of this matter. It seems to me, at least, more suitable for a later occasion, but I should like to say this. In the first place, there is a considerable different of opinion as to whether £6,000 is or is not a reasonable maximum for liability on domestic flights. If the maximum were raised, it would almost certainly, as my noble friend pointed out, entail an increase in domestic air fares. An individual can, of course, increase his own personal insurance cover, in the same way as a consignor can increase his (might I so call it?) insurance cover on baggage and cargo. Again, as has been pointed out, it would certainly create serious anomalies and complications if we were to introduce what one might term a two-tier system of liability.
Secondly, Clause 10 of the Bill, as at present drafted, provides for considerable flexibility. An Order in Council could, if it were thought expedient, raise, or indeed lower, the maximum liability foreseen in the amended Convention. Apart from this, any such Order will, of course, be subject to the Affirmative Resolution machinery. Therefore your Lordships can revert to this particular charge at that stage, if you so desire, rather than possibly pre-judging the question now or at the Committee stage. Of course, it can 'be gone into more thoroughly, as I feel is probably your Lordships' wish, at the Committee stage.
This is admittedly a complicated and difficult issue. As a result of the debate in another place, the Government are already discussing it in some detail with the airways corporations, with the independent operators, and, indeed, with

143
the insurance market; and I can assure your Lordships that what has been said in the House to-day will certainly be borne in mind in those discussions. I think I can also assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who asked (if I understood his question aright) about the warning on the ticket for domestic flights, that any Order in Council made under Clause 10 would include provision for adequate warning, probably corresponding to that required, in the case of international tickets, by Article 3 (1) (c) of the Schedule to the Bill.
My Lords, I am sure that I have detained you for long enough. I can only, in conclusion, express the hope that I have helped to convince your Lordships that the Bill moved by my noble friend is a useful one, and one which should receive a Second Reading this afternoon.
5.18 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl, to whom we are indebted for the courtesy of his reply to the observations of my noble friends, has adequately covered the point as to the application of the Convention by the Order in Council to internal air traffic in the United Kingdom. It is true that there will have to be an Affirmative Resolution, but that is not particularly exceptional, and it means that this not altogether simple International Convention will be applied, or can be applied, by Order in Council as domestic law within the United Kingdom. Presumably it will be applied in the French language, because the French text is to have precedence over the English text in the Convention. So far as it is the Convention which is applied to the United Kingdom, presumably our courts will have to try the case taking account of the fact that the law, in this instance, is in the French language. Let us hope that the judges, and juries (if any), the plaintiffs and the defendants, are all experts in the French language. There is no guarantee of that. It may not be so.
But there is another point which is perhaps even more important. It strikes me as extraordinary that this matter should be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill. The noble Earl defended this on the ground that three Members of
144
the Opposition in the House of Commons had been found to put their names on the back of the Bill. With great respect to him and to my honourable and right honourable and learned friends in the other place, that argument does not impress me greatly. Members of the House of Commons like to see their names in print. That is not uncommon in politicians, of all colours. We all like to see our names in print, because it shows that we are being remembered and taken notice of, and that is very pleasant. There is nothing easier than for a Private Member to go to the other side of the House and get somebody to put his name to a Bill. It is an old technique, perfectly easy. He is bound to find somebody simple enough to put his name to the Bill.
But the Opposition in the House of Commons, like all Oppositions, is partly concerned in delaying the Government's business, and what have these simple souls done in this case? The Law Officers (I am quite ready for them to be simple souls) and one other Member, very honourable and meritorious, all three of them, put their names on the Bill and have persuaded three members of the Opposition to do likewise—which shows what charming, Christian, simple souls British politicians are! It does not impress me a bit that three members of my Party in the House of Commons have put their names on the Bill. I have great respect for all three and I understand their motives, which are honourable, courteous and decent; but nevertheless they were simple souls to do it
How do Private Members' Bills originate in the ordinary way? A Member of Parliament, either in another place Of in this House—I had better not put all the criticisms on the little customs of the House of Commons—may have a bee in his bonnet about something and may think that a Private Member's Bill would be a good way of ventilating it. There is all the excitement of being the father of possible legislation, of bringing it in and debating it and possibly of getting fair publicity for it. That is perfectly natural. Some Private Members' Bills are good and useful; some are controversial and some would be described by some people as silly, though that is a matter of opinion. There are

145
Private Members' Bills which are promoted by some well-meaning, honourable and public-spirited societies representing good causes. They are often in the queue to persuade Members of one House or the other to bring in a Private Member's Bill on their behalf. That is all right. Usually they are successful, and the Member is grateful to them, because they save him the arduous task of drafting a Bill and they give him advice.
There is a third device for bringing in a Private Member's Bill (in which, let me say, I have taken part as a former Leader of the House of Commons), when the Government have a nice, innocent, quiet, little Bill for which time cannot be found in the Government's legislative programme, and are glad if some honourable Member took it on as a Private Member's Bill. This is commonly known. Such Bills are directed by the Whips and the Leader of the House, and are useful to the Government Departments concerned. But they are usually small, restricted, innocent Bills, desirable in themselves, which the Department concerned want to get through but could not get past the appropriate Committee of the Cabinet and into the legislative programme. That is all right. But when it comes to Bills of substance, including such a Bill as this, which ratifies and put into legal form an important and complicated International Convention, I think that it is an abuse of governmental procedure that the Government should land this on to a Private Member.
This is a matter which essentially ought to be Government responsibility. A precedent has been quoted of some other Convention. I would say that in regard to any International Convention to which the Government are a consenting party it is for the Government to get the legislation consequent upon that International Convention through Parliament, and they ought not to farm it out to a Private Member simply because they have a lot of objectionable legislation which they want to push through Parliament. They are farming out this Bill, which ought to be a Government Bill, to a private Member, with the acquiescence of three Members of the Opposition, and as a result are lightening their own legislative programme.
146
This is too important a Bill to be a Private Member's Bill. It ought to be brought in not by a Private Member but by a Minister of the Crown, with the Law Officers in attendance and with all the influence and accountability of the Government behind it.
I am sorry to speak with such emphasis, because I know that your Lordships do not always like emphasis, but I feel strongly that this is an abuse of Parliament and it ought not to be done in this way. I hope that we may hear something from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who is an important member of the Cabinet, about how this procedure has been adopted. I think that it is open to objection as an abuse of Private Members' legislation, which ought to be really Private Members' legislation. I do not believe that this is Private Members' legislation at all. I believe that it is Government legislation which has been pushed through Private Members' channels.
5.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I respond with great alacrity to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth? May I say how much pleasure it gives me to reply to him once again? We both look back to many happy opportunities, when one or other rose to answer the points of the other, and I should like the noble Lord to know that it gives me real pleasure to be doing it once more.
The noble Lord has raised two points. The first is with regard to Clause 10 and the application to air transport, other than international air transport, of the provisions of the Convention by Order in Council. May I direct his attention to the last line and a half of subsection (1), which say:
"… subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be so specified."
I think that, on reflection, the noble Lord will see that any terrors which may be in his mind about the difficulties of the French tongue can be eliminated by that method on any grounds that are necessary. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will forgive me, but I had to leave the House for a quarter of

147
an hour on an important appointment and missed his speech. I was courteously informed that he had indicated that legal consideration should be given to his points. I want to assure him that I shall read his speech carefully, and I will consider the points he has raised, and also the points raised in this regard by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
I come to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with regard to Private Members' Bills. I have heard that speech several hundred times in the last 26 years. I have always heard it from a member of the Government who wanted to damp down the ardour of a Private Member introducing his Bill. Finding it difficult to bring any other arguments against the Private Member's Bill, he fell back on that time-honoured chestnut: "this is no subject for a Private Member's Bill".
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Has the noble and learned Viscount, within his recollection, heard a Minister of the Crown oppose a Private Member's Bill on the ground that it ought not to be a Private Member's Bill, and that the House had better not carry it; that it should be a Government Bill and should be considered in that light, "but we are making no promises"? If it be a sin to put forward that argument, it is a sin that is committed by Ministers of the Crown, as well as by other people.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a sin that is committed by Ministers of the Crown. My point is that it is a sin to which Ministers of the Crown are unduly prone when they are short of other arguments against the Bill. I wanted to put this to the noble Lord quite seriously, but not too seriously—he will understand what I mean. I think that the development in Private Members' Bills which has taken place since 1945 is one of the most valuable developments in our Parliamentary life. If the noble Lord will refer to a book dealing with Parliament 50 years ago, written by Hilaire Belloc, on the Party system—and after all, there is no greater authority on the Party system than the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth—he will find that one of the great complaints of Parliament made by Hilaire Belloc and his coadjutor was the great difficulty that
148
Private Members had in playing a full part in politics. I have spent at least half of my 26 years out of office, and I believe it is important that private Members should be encouraged to play a full part.
Looking back to the period between the wars, I think, with great diffidence, that one of the troubles about Private Members' Bills was that they fell within the category which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, desired, and to which he would like them to be restricted. They were then used largely for one of two reasons: first, by the Party in Opposition to make a gesture as to their programme or an attack against the Government; and secondly, by those (I do not want to be unkind and call them "cranks") whose ideas did not find general approbation. The result was that many of the Fridays on which we used to discuss Private Members' Bills were—I will not say wasted, but not occupied as profitably as they could be. Since the war Private Members' Bills have taken a new turn. They have consisted largely of efforts to supplement the legislative programme of the Government of the day on most useful and practical lines.
I want to urge this upon the noble Lord. I enjoyed his flourish this afternoon, but he must remember that he is regarded as one of the serious thinkers in this country on the functioning of Parliament and our machinery of Government. He knows me too well to think that I am saying that in a fulsome way: I have read his books, and I state it as a fact. I think that someone in his position should, at any rate, give thought to the other point of view. I say that Private Members' Bills have been used as an adjunct in putting forward serious and practical measures. The noble Lord knows two things. One is that in the modern State, with its greater complications, and in a period of scientific advancement it is an inevitable consequence that any Government must govern and legislate over a wider sphere. That is common ground, although there would be arguments about how far the sphere should extend. That means that in the very restricted period—which, apart from the Finance Bill and various matters that have to come up every day (my noble friend Lord Margesson will correct me if I am

149
wrong), permits something in the nature of 60 days, more or less, for the legislative programmes of any Government—it is more and more difficult for a Government to do more than their main-programme Bills. On the other hand, every Government sets up Commissions, sends delegations to international Conferences and is then faced with the problem of putting their recommendations into effect.
Although the Royal Commission was set up by the late Lord Jowitt, the Report of the Morton Commission on Marriage and Divorce, under my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton, came to me. The Commission put forward a large number of proposals, many of which have reached the Statute Book, largely owing to the efforts of Private Members who have supplemented our legislative programme; and I have done my best to help them along the way. There is a great deal of legislation to-day which is not Party political but is generally desired by the people of this country and is helpful if it is brought to the Statute Book. I feel that the efforts of Private Members in the extended field that they take are a healthy and sound development in our Parliamentary life.
I am sorry to have occupied so much time, but I would always do the noble Lord the honour of replying to a remark of his. Apart from the pleasure it gives me to make yet another reply, I should be grateful to him, in his position, as an old colleague and foe in both Government and Parliament, if he would consider that point seriously. We shall no doubt have another chance of returning to it, but I hope he will do me that honour; and that after my reply noble Lords opposite will give a Second Reading to the Bill, on the understanding that the important points raised are thoroughly examined and threshed out in Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, after Cause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Probationary Licences
".—(1) A licensing authority receiving an application from a person who has not held any driving licence since he passed his test shall, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, issue to that person a probationary licence.
(2) Probationary licences shall remain in force for one year, but shall otherwise be issued on the terms and conditions laid down in section one hundred and one of the principal Act.
(3) A person holding a probationary licence shall not drive any vehicle without exhibiting fore and aft the prescribed sign in the prescribed manner. The Minister may by statutory instrument prescribe the sign referred to in this subsection and the manner in which it is to be exhibited; any statutory instrument made under this subsection shall be annullable in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) If the holder of a probationary licence is convicted of any of the offences described in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the First Schedule to this Act, the court convicting him shall order that his licence be revoked, and such revocation shall have the effect of cancelling his driving test, and thereafter he shall not hold any form of driving licence, other than a provisional licence, until he has again passed a driving test."
The noble Lord said: This new clause seeks to give effect to a proposal which I adumbrated with some particularity when speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill. I then expressed the hope that the Minister would give serious consideration to this proposal which, in my submission, could and would make a valuable contribution to the promotion of road safety. I know of, and appreciate, the sympathetic consideration which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has given to the proposal, but he feels that there are difficulties on grounds of administration and enforcement. That may be. In these days of complexity of life and living, most changes or extensions of the

151
procedures of behaviour in society involve difficulties. It is the obligation of Governments and of Ministries to surmount them, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will agree with that.
When the issue of licences to drivers was first made subject to a prescribed test, there were difficulties of administration and of enforcement. There were, of course, those who said the procedure would not work. They were wrong; it has worked. The provisional licence procedure, and the test associated with the grant of a full licence, have proved, on the whole, satisfactory. Bad as they are to-day, one hesitates to think what death traps our roads would be if, with the volume of motor traffic they now carry, one could still get a licence without a test and for the simple payment of 5s. I submit that the procedure of licensing should be extended. In my view, the full licence is granted too early, and it is granted unconditionally. It is issued before the licensee has had an opportunity, in point of time, for reasonable and adequate experience of driving on his own responsibility, even though he has passed the prescribed test. The procedure devised years ago, when road conditions were vastly different, needs to be extended, in my view, to meet these changed conditions. Licensing procedures cannot remain static when all else in road user and control is changing.
The new clause would introduce an intermediate stage or, shall I say, a probationary stage between the grant of a provisional licence and the grant of a full licence. This could be done by the issue of a probationary licence operative for a period of, say, twelve months from the passing of the test by the holder of a provisional licence, on the terms and conditions set out in the clause in the Marshalled List, or as may otherwise be determined. One of these would be that any vehicle driven by him during those twelve months would carry the letter "P" as a sign, in place of the letter "L". There would be no requirement that the probationer should be accompanied by a licensed driver. It may well be that the clause as drafted is defective in one or more respects—so be it; these defects can be remedied. What is important is the acceptance of the proposal in principle; the precise drafting of the clause can then follow.
What are the merits of this proposal, and what is the case for it? I sought to give these when speaking in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, and I would not wish to repeat them to-day, except that I spoke at the end of a long two-day debate to a somewhat sparse House, and it may well be that some of your Lordships are not fully seized of the case for this proposal. May I, then, briefly recapitulate? At present, the holder of a provisional licence must have an "L" fore and aft on the vehicle he is driving, and he must be accompanied by a licensed driver. The "L" sign is a notice to others using the highway that the person in the vehicle is a learner, which is a valuable safeguard both to the learner and to other drivers who are put, as it were, on their guard to be ready for the unexpected and/or wrong action on the part of the learner. Moreover, fully experienced drivers, and this is no less valuable, are generally considerate and patient towards the learner, as much in their own interests as in his. In this respect, it is of course the case that some of the drivers under a full licence may the day before have been themselves driving under the protection of the "L" sign, which circumstance, in my submission, is an added point in favour of this proposal.
In addition, the learner with a provisional licence must be, and is, accompanied by a licensed driver to guide and advise him, and to keep him from doing the wrong thing; and, indeed, keep him from doing the right thing at the wrong time. In many cases it will be an instructor, the majority of whom are competent and efficient, although there are, of course, some black sheep in the flock. Finally, there is the tester himself.
The learner duly passes his test, it may be after only a few hours of actual driving and experience of road conditions, and, having passed, he is thereupon entitled to go on to the highway with a vehicle, large or small, high-powered or low-powered, without the company of a licensed driver and without the "L" sign to give notice to other drivers that he is an initiate driver with only limited experience, often very limited—indeed, derisory experience. He thus loses the consideration he formerly enjoyed from other drivers, the comfort and confidence

153
which comes from having a licensed driver with him, and the knowledge that if he was going to do the wrong thing he would be corrected or stopped by the licensed driver. But now, after he has passed the test, he is alone, maybe in a vehicle much more powerful than the one he learned to drive on, or the one on which he passed out.
When a learner takes his test, he is normally keyed up, and the tester will tell him to do this or that, but only—and this is very important—when it is proper and safe to do it. The situation is quite different when the erstwhile learner is on his own. He has no one to advise him or restrain him from doing the wrong thing, and none of that forbearance from other drivers which the "L" sign attracts. As I have said, he is alone as a driver, with very limited experience, in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle, amid a multitude of other vehicles, all dangerous in certain conditions and certain circumstances, including some being driven by learners and some being driven by persons who, like himself, were learners the day before yesterday. The safeguard of the "L" sign is no longer available to him or to the other drivers on the road.
The proposal does not cast any reflection on the person who passes the test, or upon the quality of the test. Nor am I questioning the sense of common responsibility to other road users of the learner himself, or his sense of responsibility to his passengers and to himself. I submit that this proposal is as much for his benefit—namely, the learner or the one who has passed the test—as for other road users, not excluding pedestrians. The fact that for a year his vehicle must carry the letter "P" which would signify that he has passed the test and is a probationer, ought not, in my submission, to wound his self respect or his dignity. It is better for him to be alive as a probationer than dead from being too proud to acknowledge it.
Subsection (4) of the new clause provides that if, during his probationary licence period, the holder is found guilty of any of the offences described in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the First Schedule of the Bill, the court convicting shall order
154
that his licence be revoked, and that he shall not again hold any form of driving licence, other than a provisional one, until he has again passed a driving test. In short, he would revert to the position of a learner required to pass another test which, if he passes, will entitle him to have, subject to the decision of the court, a probationary licence and later, if no further offence be committed, the full licence at the end of twelve months of his passing the second test. As to what offences should involve this disciplinary penalty is a matter for consideration, since it may be regarded by the court as a part of the penalty otherwise appropriate to the offence or in addition thereto.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but as we have a Royal Commission at six o'clock I must now move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

White Fish and Herring Industries,

National Health Service,

Mersey Tunnel,

Allhallows Staining Churchyard,

Rio Tinto Rhodesian Mining Limited,

Shell Brazil,

Winchester Cathedral Close,

Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance,

Great Northern London Cemetery Company,

Lancashire Quarter Sessions.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
6.13 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD LATHAM: After that important interpolation I will resume. As to what offences should involve this disciplinary penalty is a matter of consideration, since it may be regarded by the court as a part of the penalty otherwise appropriate to the offence, or it may be that they will regard it as an appropriate addition thereto. I readily admit that there may be more than one opinion as to which should be the offences which should attract this, as it were, revocation of the licence which has been granted. It may well be that there are other offences scheduled in the various Schedules to the Bill which may be more appropriate for consideration in connection with this proposal. However, I am not wedded to the offences described in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Bill. As I have said, it is a matter for careful consideration.
As I said on Second Reading, I realise that this is an important extension of the licensing procedure; but it is not oppressive; it is protective both of the probationary driver himself and of third parties, including the pedestrian who, I submit, cannot be ignored, not only in connection with this proposal but in connection with the whole terms and provisions in the Bill. A pedestrian may be stupid at times, but he is perhaps not more stupid than the motorist is at times. As a motorist myself of over 40 years' standing, I blush at times at the stupid things which I do as a pedestrian. I think I am not different in that respect from most of us when we are pedestrians. I am encouraged by the circumstance that, according to to-day's newspapers, the Minister of Transport is proposing to control in some way and in some measure what is pleasantly described as the "jay-walker", and I am sure that everyone concerned with the promotion of safety on the roads will wish him luck and assure him that he will have the support of all persons of good will in any proper steps he may take to see to it that pedestrians conform to the provisions which are made for their own safety.
Of course there may be objections from motorists as a class, and from prospective learners and others. There
156
are those who, in chorus, will say that administratively it cannot be done; that there will be difficulties of enforcement. Always there are difficulties with changing procedures; it is our business to overcome them, and I am sure that the Minister, if he really wishes to do so, can overcome the difficulties and can make this a contribution towards increased road safety.
Here we are dealing with life and death. We are dealing with the dreadful, horrifying toll of death and mutilation on our roads, and no personal or private interests, no prejudices, no questions of pride or armour propre must be allowed, I submit, to stand in the way of our taking any steps, even the most drastic, to lessen this toll; nor should difficulties of operation, real or imaginary, be allowed to hamper or hinder us. If it should be done, then it can be done. That, I submit, should be our approach; and it is, of course, a good motto for any Minister. I honestly believe—I think that I am not alone in this that this proposal offers a worth-while contribution towards the reduction of road danger and the increase of road safety. I earnestly implore the Minister and, through the Minister, the Government, to accept it in principle, and to devise with energy and resolution such procedures as are necessary to carry it out, and to carry it out as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. I also believe that the proposal will receive the support of your Lordships generally, and that you will join with me in the hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will bring us the comfort of an assurance that the Government will so do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the new clause.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD SOMERS: I should like warmly to support this Amendment; in fact, I should like to see it go a little further. I should like to see the period for the probationary licence extended for more than one year and make it impossible for the holder of a probationary licence to gain a full licence until he had passed a further test. I say that because the ordinary test as it stands to-day is so obviously, I regret to say, in many cases futile. But, of course, that is not in the Amendment: and I merely say that, although I should

157
like to see it go farther, I support it very strongly indeed.
LORD STONHAM: I strongly support my noble friend in the general principle he is putting forward of this probationary period, but I am very concerned about the fourth subsection of the proposed new clause. It seems to me that the words:
"such revocation shall have the effect of cancelling his driving test"
mean that if he commits any of these offences during his probationary period he is further back than he was when he started.
The other difficulty is this. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that he was not tied to the offences, Nos. 1 to 11, in the First Schedule. It does not seem to me that any single one of those eleven offences has any relevance at all to one's ability to pass a driving test. The question of drink or drugs and matters of that kind has no relation to the driving test whatsoever, as I see it. Therefore, however desirable this probationary period may be after the driving test is passed, it appears as if the removal of the qualification, as it were, of having passed a test is quite unfair. There are people—I am one of them and perhaps my noble friend is another; I have been driving 41 years—who have never passed a driving test. If I commit any of these offences in the First Schedule, Nos. 1 to 11, then no doubt the proper punishment will be awarded. But presumably I should not have to pass a driving test, because none of these offences is related in any way to one's ability to drive and knowledge of the Highway Code, which are, in fact, what the inspector requires of the applicant for the driving test.
LORD LATHAM: May I just correct the noble Lord? It is not intended to apply to the holder of an existing licence, and therefore the noble Lord would not be under that disability, whatever he did on the road.
LORD STONHAM: I am quite aware of that; that is exactly what I said. In other words, a person who has passed a driving test would be, during the probationary period, suffering under a disability which would not apply to a person who has not passed a driving test, and that seems to me a double injustice. Although I support the principle of the
158
probationary period, I hope that some further thought can be given to the apparent injustice and irrelevancy of this fourth subsection, because I should not like the idea to be spoilt because of something like this. I should have to oppose the whole thing if this subsection (4) were to remain in.
LORD HUGHES: I feel exactly as my noble friend Lord Stonham on this matter. When I read what my noble friend Lord Latham had said on Second Reading I found myself very much in agreement, because the tenor of his remarks, as I understood them then, was that the clause to be inserted would be one which would be helpful to the person who had passed his driving test but who, through passing it, was deprived of the protection which the letter "L" on his car had given him. I, like so many other of your Lordships who have a driving licence, have never passed a test. My wife, on the other hand, is not in that position. The first time she went out in her car after passing the test she felt that the absence of the letter "L" deprived her of a great deal of moral support; and that was what I thought my noble friend Lord Latham had in mind.
But in subsection (4) he imports something quite different. He is to subject the person who has passed a driving test to something which is an additional punishment or, alternatively, depending on how one reads this, perhaps to a lighter punishment. I am not at all clear from subsection (4) whether this is in substitution for the penalties imposed in paragraphs 1 to 11, or whether it is in addition to those penalties. If it is in substitution, one must look at the First Schedule, where it will be found that in some cases there is a mandatory disqualification for a period of not less than twelve months unless the courts so otherwise order. A person who is on probation and who has his licence removed under subsection (4) might sit a driving test and gain a licence again within a period of three or four months. So we have the situation that the person who is being struck at in this new clause, because he is not as fully qualified a driver as he might otherwise be, could be back on the roads sooner than if he had been a driver of 30 or 40 years' experience.

159
If I am wrong in reading this as an alternative, then we have the other situation: that two different types of penalty are being imposed for the same offence, because a person must have his disqualification of twelve months, or whatever it may be, and thereafter must apply for a provisional licence and wait his turn for passing a driving test again. It depends entirely on the area in which he or she lives whether that opportunity will arise in a month or three months or in six months. I think, therefore, that I could have supported this new clause with enthusiasm if it had been confined to subsections (1), (2) and (3).
I appreciate that it may be that without subsection (4) the Amendment cannot go through. It is an undoubted fact that if a person does not have the confidence to go about with the full authority that having passed a driving test entitles one to, he or she can get the protection which he or she has had hitherto of continuing to have the letter "L" on his or her car; because I understand that it is no offence to drive a car with the letter "L" on it if you are not a learner. The only disadvantage I see in that is that a person may be subjected to the inconvenience of being stopped by a policeman who sees him driving without someone else, to find out whether or not he is a learner. It may therefore be that, without the last punishing part of the clause, it serves no useful purpose. I do not venture to suggest any opinion upon that point. But I certainly cannot bring myself to support an additional punishment of this kind being levied on a learner or, worse, permitting him if he has committed a serious offence to go back on the road with less than the statutory disqualification that would be imposed on other people. It seems to me that the Amendment is weak on one or other of those grounds.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry that my noble friend could get enthusiastic about alleged defects in the Amendment and really get away from what is behind it. What is behind this Amendment is a very simple principle: that is, that nobody who has merely been driving a car as a learner and has been accompanied by somebody else, having passed the test, is really in a fit `position to embark on the roads without any further
160
qualification or restriction at all. After all, this is the position in many walks of life. Take the example of a doctor. A doctor has five years' training, but he is not then allowed to go into life and practise on patients without some further period of probation; and the same applies to other professions. I cannot see what is the objection to applying this principle for a period to the person who is driving on the roads, at a time when our accident rate is increasing, when the number of cars is increasing and when it becomes more and more perilous to drive a car at all.
Both my noble friends have raised the point that this is going to be unfair as between the person who has had to pass a test and those fortunate people who have been driving since before tests were provided for in our legislation. The same applies to the professions. There are a good many people who are qualified to practice to-day but who have not passed certain tests. Take, for example, the dentist. There are many dentists practising to-day who are allowed to practise because they were practising before registration came into effect, and we do not want to stop them; but that is no reason why we should not impose necessary restrictions on the dentists of to-day. The people who have been driving without having to pass a test are naturally a dying race. There will come a time when everyone on the road will have had to pass a test. I think, therefore, that this is a good principle: that a person should have to spend a year—the noble Lord Lord Somers, thinks it should be longer; I am quite prepared to discuss that, but at least there should be a period of one year—during which he should make it known to the public, by having this plate, that he is a probationer.
If I had had the privilege of drafting this Amendment I think I might have imposed a speed limit, as I think I should have done on the learner, too. It seems to me an anomaly that a learner should be able to drive at 70 or 80 miles an hour on the road. The same, I think, should apply to a probationer, but that is not in the Amendment. However, my noble friend has said that he will be very willing to consider any alterations of this Amendment, and I would myself respectfully suggest to him that that is

161
one that might be considered: a speed limit for the probationer, as well, of course, as for the learner.
It has been said that Nos. 1 to 11 of the First Schedule are not offences which should give rise to the disqualification which is provided for in the Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friends have actually read the First Schedule, but perhaps I could remind them of some of the offences that are referred to. Number 1 is manslaughter by the driver of a vehicle. Does my noble friend suggest that if a person is found guilty of manslaughter while being the driver of a vehicle he should not be disqualified and required to pass a test?
LORD STONHAM: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I was not suggesting that at all, but I am suggesting that if a person taking a driving test committed the offence of manslaughter he would be unlikely to be granted a licence. Similarly, if a probationer had to take a driving test again he would be unlikely to commit any of these eleven offences whilst he was taking his test. Therefore, they are irrelevant to the actual passing of a test.
LORD SELKIN: Perhaps I am a little difficult of understanding this afternoon, but I cannot see the relevance of that. It seems to me quite natural that a person who has just been a learner and who has killed somebody on the road should then, if he wants to drive again, have to pass another test. For the life of me, I cannot see what is the objection to that. Surely it is prima facie evidence that his experience as a learner has not been adequate; nor has his passing of the test. The next one is causing death by dangerous driving. I should have thought that that was clear evidence that the person who was driving the car was not yet competent to drive it and should be subjected to another test. So I could go through them, but I do not want to bore the Committee. Careless driving is another. These are offences which really go to the root of a person's capacity to drive; and if, by being convicted of any of these offences, he is shown not to be fit to drive, it seems to me quite reasonable that he should be required to pass a test.
I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will give some encouragement to this Amendment. It is a new
162
idea; but, of all the Ministers in the Government at the present time, I would say that the Minister of Transport is the the one most susceptible to new ideas. He has had a great many of his own: some good, some not so good—but that is quite natural. I would rather have a Minister with a lot of ideas, a fair number good, than a Minister with no ideas at all. This is a new idea, and I really think it is well worth exploring. I hope that the noble Lord will not reject this Amendment out of hand but will give my noble friend encouragement in the pursuit of a form of words which would be acceptable to the House.
6.37 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: The Amendment deals with a subject which one can only describe as ingenious. I see that there could be administrative difficulties in having so many different types of licence on the road, and for that reason I have no doubt that my noble friend's official advisers may have set his mind against it. As one who perhaps spends rather longer than any of your Lordships accompanying learner drivers from time to time, I appreciate the protection which the "L" plates give, and I would certainly welcome the protection that a further grade up would give at the next stage. But I am afraid I simply could not accept the thesis that the perpetration of any of the first eleven offences in the First Schedule should not only be punished by the ordinary processes of law but should also involve going down a snake and starting up another test.
That, I think, would be quite irrelevant, particularly as one of the offences concerned is our old friend, speeding, and notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend announced that for certain types of commercial vehicle the maximum speed limit has gone up from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour. He said that the new law was going to be enforced, whereas the old one never was. Therefore, in my humble, estimation, the drivers of those commercial vehicles would be in a much worse state than they are at the moment. You would get the state of affairs where a probationer driver, driving one of these commercial vehicles, travelling, in the interests of road safety, at his normal speed, which would be about 45 miles an hour, would get convicted for speeding. His probationary licence would be

163
withdrawn, and thus his livelihood would automatically be forfeited, because he would be no good to his firm as a driver. So far as that offence is concerned, at any rate, I could never willingly submit to this withdrawal of the licence.
I do not believe that the vast majority of offences in that list are the result of incompetence in driving. It is the human error, which we all make from time to time, which has the misfortune to coincide with various other circumstances and thus creates a situation which perhaps the more experienced person might get out of but which the inexperienced person cannot, however many tests he may or may not have passed. I hope that my noble friend will have a look at this Amendment, but will certainly reject subsection (4) out of hand.
LORD TEYNHAM: I entirely support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I certainly have no objection to the proposed new subsections (1), (2) and (3): I think they are a good idea and worth a try. But I do not agree with subsection (4) as drawn. I think it wrong that the revocation of a probationary licence should be used as an additional punishment on conviction of any of the offences contained in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the First Schedule. That is really what it would mean, and I cannot accept subsection (4) as drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned a 30 m.p.h. speed limit for a learner driver; but a 30 m.p.h. speed limit for a learner driver would mean that he would never drive properly.
LORD SILKIN: I do not suggest a 30 m.p.h. limit: I would leave it to the Minister to prescribe.
LORD TEYNHAM: That is what I understood the noble Lord to say, but I was merely pointing out that a learner must drive faster than that in order to learn how to drive.
LORD AUCKLAND: As a learner-driver myself, I should like to say a word about the Amendment. I certainly do not attack it wholeheartedly—in fact a great deal of it meets with my support. But there seems to be one glaring omission. Supposing I, who am learning to drive with a Triumph Herald, passed my
164
test at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, I could still go along M.1, in a Jaguar with a probationary plate, accompanied or otherwise, if I understand the clause aright. That seems to me to be wrong. Unless some more drastic condition in that respect is put into the clause I do not feel it will work. It seems to me that the driving test itself needs stiffening. I am going to take a test for the second time quite soon, so for my own part that would not be very congenial; but as a national matter I think it certainly needs stiffening. I should have thought a stiffening of the driving test, so as possibly to include a test on maintenance of a car and on manoeuvring a car into a confined parking space, would meet the requirements of the clause more than a probationary licence.
6.45 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I have been listening, with considerable interest, to what your Lordships have been saying, none the less because the reception your Lordships have accorded this Amendment has been a bag of rather mixed biscuits. Before I make any comment, I think I ought to slip in a word of apology to the noble Lord, Lord Latham. As he said, he asked on Second Reading that serious consideration be given to the scheme which he outlined at that time, and I told him privately that I hoped to come back and talk to him about it in the meantime, which, due to his official duties taking him abroad, and the pressure of mine over a few days, I was not able to do until to-day. I thought I would say that, because I should not like him to think that serious consideration was not given to what he suggested on Second Reading.
Perhaps his thinking in the meantime has been beneficial, because the scheme he has put forward is rather a refinement of the scheme he outlined at that time. We did, as I say, consider the scheme with care and we considered it as a whole. I know that the noble Lord intends that it should be taken as a whole, but as it falls into what are, in effect, three separate proposals, I think they must to a certain extent be taken individually in the process of examining the whole.
With regard to the first proposal, that a driver for the first year should have a probationary licence, I am sure the

165
noble Lord will not mind if I say that this is probably the least important part of his proposal. It is obviously intended as a method of identifying the driver who has passed the test within the preceding year. But administratively it might be simpler to provide, for example, that the first three-year licence, or annual licence, issued after success in a driving test should be one of a different colour, with the date of the test stamped on it. I do not see the real advantage in making a completely new category of licence; for it is, after all, mostly a question of procedure and depends, to a considerable extent, on what happens in respect of the other parts of the Amendment.
The second proposal is a variant of the general principle of a two-tier structure of tests for drivers. We have considered various schemes at various times in the past, and I think there clearly would be an advantage in a structure of that kind. One way to do it, of course, would be to have a formal second test of a more advanced standard after the "L" test had been passed, and drivers would not get a full licence until they had passed it. But they would, of course, be allowed to drive solo, so to speak, after they had passed the "L" test. There is a major reason why we have not thought it possible, or practicable, to introduce such a system, and that is the extra burden, which would be a very heavy one, which would be placed on the driving test organisation. The noble Lord said that it was the duty of Ministers and Departments to find ways around snags when they crop up, but this is a very solid one indeed, and it is not a matter that can be dealt with by saying that difficulties are made to be overcome.
Lord Latham's scheme for displaying "P" plates (as he called them) would avoid the difficulty which arises on the question of a second test. But we should need a certain number of new administrative arrangements to make sure that it could be properly enforced. The noble Lord and I had a private conversation earlier, and I now rather tend to agree with him that it is probably not more difficult to enforce than an "L" plate; but the snag really arises in the numbers which would be involved. We tried to do a sum of how many people might be said to
166
be carrying "P" plates at arty given moment of the year, and it worked out, as near as one could tell, at about 800,000, which is 10 per cent. of the vehicle population on the roads. The difficulty would lie in having 800,000 more people who might be committing an offence. The noble Lord may not think that is a very great disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage just the same.
Another disadvantage is this. If a new driver had to carry his "P" plate for a fixed period (the noble Lord suggested a year, but some other period might be thought suitable—six months perhaps), it would not correspond, as I see it, with any particular degree of additional experience for the driver. During that year, or six months, some drivers might drive little and not gain much experience; and others might drive 20,000 miles. Therefore the benefit it would confer is very variable and this is a disadvantage over the second test, which can be taken only when a driver is fit to do it and involves no fixed time.
My noble friend Lord Teynham said he thought it would be worth a try; but that is not tremendous enthusiasm. I think that there are other considerations which have to be borne in mind. My noble friend Lord Hawke told us—and I was glad to hear him say it—that the "L" plate gives a degree of protection to an inexperienced driver. Generally speaking, I think it is right to say that "L" plates are respected by other drivers. I wonder whether "P" plates would cause ordinary drivers to show extra consideration to cars which carry them. Would they show the consideration they show at present for "L" plate drivers? I wonder whether the proliferation of plates for which motorists have to look is not going to depreciate the currency of plates. At the moment there are nearly 1¾ million driving tests taken per year, so I suppose that there are something like that number of learner drivers on the road. With a further 800,000 "P" plates, we should have something like 2½million plates on the road. Will people, when they see so many plates, simply not respect either? I think that that would be a bad thing.
Another point is that if ordinary drivers wear their "P" plates for a year and show themselves good drivers, going along with efficiency, safety and accuracy, people will begin to think

167
that "P"-plate drivers seem to drive almost as well as anyone else and there is no need to show them the consideration which the noble Lord wants. Would it be a good thing for drivers at this stage to be shown the sort of consideration which was shown to "L" plate drivers? I do not know whether it is going to enable them to gain the full experience they should get, if they are treated as special cases by ordinary drivers. It is difficult to say. If I may sum up, while we are certainly sympathetic to the two-tier structure in order to give a further probation period, we rather doubt whether this is the way to do it. In any case, I doubt whether all the detailed provisions, which would have to be worked out to make it effective could be worked out in time for this Bill. Therefore, I am doubtful whether the provision of "P" plates by themselves will be worth while.
I like rather better—at any rate in principle—the third proposal, to which several noble Lords have taken exception. I am not much interested in what offences may be included; I am more interested in the effect, which may well be to encourage drivers, during their first year of driving by themselves, to set about it with particular care. I think that in the first year of full driving that would be a very desirable thing to do, because that is the period when drivers consolidate the instruction they have had and begin to marry it up with the experience they are getting. I think that a proposal such as this may do something to ensure that drivers get into good habits at the early stage in their driving careers. Of course, a scheme like this would throw up a requirement for additional driving tests. We have tried to do a little sum about this, on the assumption that they are spread pro rata between probationary drivers and others, and it looks as if the number of additional tests arising out of this would be something like 20,000 to 30,000 a year—a figure with which we could well cope.
LORD HAWKE: Does that take into account that, if the new commercial limit of 40 m.p.h. is strictly enforced, every probationary driver of a commercial vehicle will have committed that offence more than once a year?
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Lord has already been interrupted, may I ask whether he can say what effect it would have on the vast number—the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said 1,700,000—of motor cyclists who have not yet had a test and for whom it was impossible to fix a year in which they would be tested? Is it better to test them first rather than test somebody else twice?
LORD CHESHAM: I think that that raises a slightly different issue. I do not see what effect that is going to have on them at all. I must stand on what I said. The likely number of extra tests that would arise on this could be handled. I do not think that what the noble Lord has raised would cause me to alter my view on that point. What would this do? The Bill already provides, in the case of any offence for which a court can order disqualification, that the court can order a test to be taken, whether disqualification is ordered or not. This would make that provision, which is discretionary, obligatory for probationary drivers. Opinions are varied on whether that is a good thing or not. For myself, I do not see any very great objection to it.
What I should like to do is to have a chance to look at this matter again, now that we have had this debate. It is difficult for me to give an undertaking that will be a positive commitment; I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that. Though not very keen on it, I will have another look at the "P" plate suggestion. Although I am not hopeful about changing my view about it, I will certainly look at it carefully once again. I should also like to look at subsection (4), with a view to seeing whether we cannot get out of it, in an acceptable way, some of the undoubted good that it contains; but I do not think it would be possible to do that in time for the next stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and perhaps it could be put into the Bill in another place. I am bound to say, if the noble Lord will allow me, that I cannot suggest that your Lordships should accept this Amendment, because of the defects which I regret to say occur in the drafting, especially with regard to the various forms of licence, which I need not weary your Lordships by describing. I hope, therefore, with the consideration I have

169
promised in mind, that the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment at the present time.
LORD LATHAM: Having regard to the passage of time and the agenda that we have to get through this evening, I do not propose to seek to refute some of the criticism that has been passed both by my noble friends behind me as well as by noble Lords facing me, including the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I accept the noble Lord's assurance that both aspects of the matter—I think they go together—will have consideration. I doubt whether they are fully understood by the speakers who have criticised them but that can be dealt with later. On the assurances that have been givel by the Department, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: Before the noble Lord withdraws it, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that I think a good many noble Lords would like to deal with this matter in this House before it goes to another place.
LORD CHESHAM: If I may also speak again with permission, I appreciate the noble Lord's point and I want to do What I can to meet it. With the complication of drafting, consequential Amendments and that kind of thing, I do not think that it would be physicality possible to do it. But I will certainly do what I can.
LORD HAWKE: I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that if he wanted to accept the substance of the Amendment at the next stage it would be perfectly possible to draft something quite simple and to leave out subsection (4) which is so objectionable to many noble Lords.
LORD WALERAN: I, too, would say that subsection (4) is most objectionable to a number of noble Lords, and I feel that we should have an opportunity of dealing with it in this House.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Hawke, have said. The only part of the proposed new clause which has been criticised is that part to which the noble Lord is undertaking to give favourable consideration. Everyone else has
170
welcomed the first three subsections, and the noble Lord throws out little hope of doing anything about them; but the one subsection we do not like he is to try to have incorporated elsewhere at a later stage. It seems to me that that is not taking very much account of the debate at all.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think the noble Lord is entirely justified in saying that. I cannot remember giving an undertaking to give favourable consideration to subsection (4). Let me be clear as to what I understood myself to be undertaking to do. It was to consider the underlying principle of subsection (4), in which I am of opinion, as are others of your Lordships, there is some good, in an endeavour to extract that good and incorporate it in some way at a later stage. If that has to be done in another place, because of the physical difficulties that I mentioned of doing it here, then of course your Lordships will at a later stage have a chance to debate it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
Exercise of powers for mitigating traffic congestion in London Traffic Area
". The power of the Minister under sub-section (3) of section one hundred and thirty-seven of the Highways Act. 1959 (which provides for the drawing up of schemes relating to the execution of such works as may involve the closing to vehicular traffic of parts of certain highways in the London Traffic Area) to draw up such schemes as are mentioned in that subsection may be exercised without previous reference to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and accordingly that subsection shall he amended as follows—

(a) for the words "shall refer all statements" there shall be substituted the words "may refer any statements";

(b) for the words "those statements" there shall be substituted the words "any statements so referred"; and

(c) after the words "after considering" there shall be inserted the words "(in the case of any statements so referred)"."

The noble Lord said: This is not an Amendment of major importance. The Minister twice a year has to produce a statement of road maintenance and improvement schemes in the London Traffic Area for the purpose of drawing

171
up a timetable of orders being made by his divisional road engineers for forthcoming work, to avoid confusion and the streets where the work is taking place being unnecessarily blocked up. He has a statutory obligation to refer those statements to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Apart from two points regarding the imposition of speed limits that are dealt with by Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill, if the Bill becomes law as it stands, there will only be one remaining statutory obligation left for the Minister to consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and that will be in respect of these half-yearly statements.
Meetings of the Committee in future are likely to be at rather irregular intervals, and I think it could be a serious waste of the time of the 45 members of the Committee if, by law, they had to be summoned together twice a year simply to consider these half-yearly statements, particularly if they had nothing in them on which the advice of the Committee was necessary. I should tell your Lordships that in recent years no points of substance have been raised by the Committee which would have been likely to be missed had the Minister not referred the statements to them.
There is one other point with regard to consultations with the bodies primarily concerned. The highways authorities compile the original statements which are sent to the Minister. The Minister consults the police in detail before compiling his composite statement, and that when done is sent to the London Transport Executive, as well as to the police. I can tell your Lordships that this consultation will be continued even if the Traffic Advisory Committee is not consulted. The A.A. and the R.A.C. will also be informed direct. I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships to accept this Amendment, and I will only add that removal of this obligation would effect a considerable saving of labour and paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD LATHAM: I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions with regard to the future of the London and
172
Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, of which I was a member as far back as 1930 and until 1939. Are the Committee to have nothing to do except to meet sporadically? Do the Committee consent to the withdrawal of almost all the remaining powers from the Committee and their transfer to the Minister? I am not questioning the propriety of it; I have doubted for some time as to whether, in the altered circumstances, the Committee were as useful, if I may say so, with respect, as before the war. There were occasions, sometimes not unmixed with humour, when the Committee quite energetically disagreed with the Minister, and notably in connection with the provision of pedestrian crossings. The Minister was right on that and the Committee, in the light of experience, were proved to be wrong. But it would be interesting to know whether the Committee are to continue and, if so, what they are to do.
LORD CHESHAM: As I understand it, the Committee will certainly continue in being. They are, after all, an Advisory Committee to whom the Minister will have to refer a great number of problems for advice. The only thing that is happening is this. They are not being cut out but it is merely a question of tidying things up in order to be able to speed them up. Instead of the word "shall" refer to the Committee the word "may" is preferred, because at the moment a good deal of material is going to the Committee which is rather wasting their time and holding up the procedure unnecessarily. The Committee still have a useful function to continue to fulfil, and I am sure that the Minister will refer a good deal of work to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 24 agreed to.
7.10 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved, after Clause 24 to insert the following new clause
Dangerous conduct by pedestrians, etc.
"Any person who, on or near a highway, so behaves himself as to endanger in the use of the highway himself or any other person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."
The noble Lord said: I shall be as short as possible at this late hour. This

173
Bill undoubtedly has as a primary object that of saving life and injury. I must just give you a personal experience of my own. I am now unable to walk more than a hundred yards. The consequence is that I am always driving in a taxi, and I get a great deal of experience of what takes place on the roads by just sitting there and watching what goes on. In my view, the taxi drivers are amazing people. How they are able to avoid killing a great many people, I cannot understand. What do I see? I will tell you, and I am not inventing anything and not exaggerating anything. I find that the pedestrians are careless and inconsiderate. Of course, I must include children, but then they have no experience.
This is the sort of thing that happens. The other day, while I was driving in a taxi from here to my flat, what do I find?—a fellow walking across the road reading a paper. Luckily, my taxi driver saw him before he struck him, but how he did not strike him I do not know. There was this fellow reading a paper in the middle of the road. Now can you imagine anybody being so foolish as that? But if he had been punished for it he would never do it again. As it was, he looked rather insulted that we had pulled up and hooted at him.
We had a debate on the subject of light, and the question of the yellow lighting in Paris was raised. I think we all have experienced being dazzled, whether we have been walking or in a car, by the white lights that we use, and I feel most strongly that the Government should take further steps to consider the question of changing the lights from white to yellow. There is no question about it, so far as my experience goes, that that would make things safer.
Then there are crossings, Zebra crossings, and so on. My son went to stay with his friend in Moscow, and he came back much impressed by the strict manner in which those who controlled the traffic in the roads insisted upon no crossing except at certain places. I-le did not know whether people were being punished, but, judging by the way the roads were treated, he thought that undoubtedly there was a serious punishment for anybody who tried to cross roads at unspecified places. I do not know whether your Lordships have
174
noticed it, but there are quite a number of people who come and stand at a Zebra crossing. If you or I have to cross, I am quite certain that we warn the traffic. We hold up our hand to show that we are going to cross. But we see these people standing there, perhaps talking to somebody, and suddenly, without giving any warning to the traffic, because they are on a Zebra crossing they start to walk across. What chance has the wretched driver when that sort of thing suddenly happens? It is marvellous how these taxi drivers manage to pull up in time.
Then there are the women with prams. They stand on the pavement, with the pram sticking out in front of them into the road. Why not keep the pram on the pavement? They are on the pavement, but the pram with the child in it nearly always is sticking out in the road, or practically in the road. Then there are the people who are waiting to cross the road. Why stand in the road? Every day I find it, and even here, in the square opposite the other place, one sees people waiting to cross the road and standing in the road. Why not stand on the pavement? That is what it is meant for. How these taxi men escape killing them, when they come round a rather blind, tall lorry, I do not understand.
This is a thing which annoys me very much. You get a taxi that is going along al a normal pace, not too fast, and suddenly a pedestrian walks in front of it. How he gets there you cannot tell, but the taxi-driver jams on his brakes, the brakes screech, and he pulls up in time without hurting the pedestrian. They only laugh about that, but it is nothing to laugh about. Why do they laugh? It is mostly girls who do that, when they just escape being hurt. We have had a good deal of discussion about the behaviour of motor drivers and taxi drivers, and the question of manners on the road has been mentioned. Now why should we not ask the pedestrians to acquire the same manners that we want from the drivers of cars? I see no reason why they should not be punished if they do not do that.
I have a Stationery Office book here, and perhaps your Lordships might take the trouble to yet one of them and read it, with regard to the casualties of pedestrians. In Tables 8, 15, 19 and 20 there is detailed information on thousands of

175
casualties incurred by pedestrians, and a great many of those casualties, so far as one can make out, are quite unnecessary. I feel most strongly that something should be done to correct this haphazard method of walking about in the roads, of which the pedestrian seems to have a habit. I hope the Government will take all the activities of the pedestrians into careful consideration with a view to fining or punishing in some way those who do not carry out what is the safe way of using the roads, and will try to drive into them the same spirit that we are trying to drive into those who drive cars and taxis. I think we should find that there would be a change in the numbers of deaths, serious injuries and injuries which run into thousands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 24. insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teviot.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I must say that I am inclined to agree with this Amendment. Of course, there is nothing in the Bill at the present time about the behaviour of a pedestrian who may, perhaps through drunkenness or lack of care and attention, be the cause of a serious accident. I think one of the examples given by my noble friend Lord Teviot was a very good one—a man walking across the road reading a newspaper. There are others who run across the traffic without taking any care at all. I am not sure that this Amendment will fully meet the case, but I certainly accept the principle of it, and no doubt the noble Earl who is to reply will tell us about that particular point.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I also support the principle of the Amendment, but I cannot support the way it is worded. For instance, it appears to be confined to members of the male sex. It says:
"… so behaves himself as to endanger …"
What about the "herselves"? Also there are a great many pedestrians who endanger the safety of the public highway through no fault of their own. For instance, there are the extremely pretty girls, who so often take the eye of a driver off his wheel. I remember reading that in America many hundreds of thousands of accidents are caused
176
every year by either gaily or barely dressed females. As it is worded, I think there are two great difficulties in this Amendment. First of all, it accuses only our sex; and, secondly, there are many thousands of people who, as I say, through no fault of their own—like pretty girls—can endanger the use of the highway.
THE EARL OF NORTHESK: I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Teviot in principle, but I do not think it is worded widely enough. I think that what he is aiming at, and what I am sure a great many of your Lordships would desire, is that the pedestrian should have to obey traffic lights in the same way as the motor car. When lights turn to the benefit of the motorist, there are still pedestrians who ignore that signal. If a pedestrian had to obey the traffic lights, as exhibited to him, in the same way as traffic, that would go a long way towards reducing the appalling casualties on our roads, which is the main theme of this Bill. I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment, if it can be redrafted to make the pedestrian obey traffic-controlled signals on the roads.
LORD HAWKE: This clause certainly raises a very wide issue. So far as I am aware, it would be a completely new principle of English law that the walkers on the Queen's highway shall have to obey particular rules of walking, and so on. I am not at all sure that the British public would be prepared to stand for it, because not only does it involve such things as penalties for crossing the road against the lights—which would perhaps not be an unreasonable thing—but presumably it would also involve directions as to which side of the pavement we should walk and would make it an offence to step off the pavement into the road, which, of course, could be a dangerous operation, and so on.
I do not deny that, if we were prepared to be such a regimented nation on the pavements, it would make a considerable difference to road casualty figures, because, as anybody knows, the difficulties of driving, particularly on rainy nights in the winter, in the office rush hour or later on in the amusement rush hour, are such that a slight lapse by any walker is liable to produce an

177
accident. It is on conditions of that sort that I am convinced that the people who maintain that a large proportion of the accidents on the roads are caused by drink base their quite erroneous case. I am afraid I could not support this Amendment, though I believe that perhaps I would go so far as to make a provision to make it an offence to cross the road against the lights.
VISCOUNT CROSS: May I say—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, will have an opportunity of speaking after me. I think it would be convenient if I said a word on this Amendment on behalf of the Government. There is no reason why others of your Lordships should not speak for a long time afterwards, if you wish to do so. I would inform the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that it is no objection to this Amendment that it contains the word "himself". I think the noble Viscount should be aware that it is a well-known principle in the drafting of Parliamentary Bills that "man" embraces "woman". This is the second evening my noble friend Lord Teviot has sat up late in the hope of reaching his Amendment, and I think we all agree that in a great many cases accidents are almost entirely or quite the fault of the pedestrian, and that the need of better manners is often just as great among pedestrians as it is among motorists.
The Minister has already certain powers in regard to pedestrians under the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960. He has now the power to impose traffic restrictions on pedestrians on roads within the London Traffic Area, and, as my noble friend Lord Chesham announced on Second Reading, the Minister is proposing to try some experiments with the control of pedestrians in this area; and work is now going on in preparation for these experiments. The Minister also has certain powers, which he has not so far used, to control pedestrians, also in the London area, in the neighbourhood of pedestrian crossings.
LORD LATHAM: Ministers always seem to try it out on the Londoner.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is perfectly true, and particularly true in this case. But I think that all the examples,
178
or most of them, which were given by my noble friend Lord Teviot were examples of what happened in the London area. My right honourable friend considered very carefully whether he should take more drastic control over pedestrians generally in other parts of the country in this Bill, but he came to the conclusion that it would be better to experiment in London first and to see whether more control would have the effect of reducing accidents. If so, he will then consider providing for control of pedestrians outside the London Traffic Area. He did not think it right to include in the present Bill general provisions about pedestrians, because he had not yet applied the experiments in London which he is proposing.
My noble friend's Amendment does not, of course, provide for any particular regulations to be enforced. It is merely a general provision that it will be an offence for a pedestrian anywhere to walk in a dangerous manner or otherwise behave in a dangerous manner at or near the roads. I think your Lordships will probably agree that a general law of that kind would be a difficult thing to enforce, and it would impose a heavy burden on the police. And I am not sure that it would have tile support of public opinion. I hope my noble friend will agree that it is a more practical course to proceed by experiments on specific regulations about crossings, and other matters if it is thought suitable, in particular places, and to see how those experiments work out.
LORD TEVIOT: I am very interested in what my noble friend has just told me, and it gives me a hope that something is going to be done. If I may, I would thank my two noble friends who have spolcen for the suggestions that they made. Those points were meant to be covered by the clause, although they were not mentioned; I did not want to make the new clause too long. The main idea is that people should not walk against the light, which I think is called "jaywalking ". With regard to what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard said, I mentioned the lady with the pram, and I mentioned the girls who laughed when the brakes were crashed on and they just escaped. Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, the male, to him, involves the lady as well. I shall look with great interest in the

179
future and hope (that from what I and other noble Lords have said, something will come in the reduction of the 'appalling casualties. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Pedal cycles]:
7.35 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, at the commencement of the clause to insert:
"(1) For subsection (1) of section seventy of the principal Act (which provides for regulating, in certain respects, the equipment of bicycles and tricycles and the use of such equipment) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(1) The Minister may make regulations as to the use on roads of bicycles and tricycles, not being motor vehicles, their construction and equipment and the conditions under which they may be so used; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, as to—

(a) the number, nature and efficiency of brakes and their maintenance in proper working order;

(b) the appliances to be fitted for signalling approach and their maintenance in proper working order; and

(c)the testing and inspection, by persons authorised under the regulations, of any equipment prescribed under this subsection and of lighting equipment and reflectors.'

(2) At the end of the said section seventy there shall be added the following subsections:—
'(4) Regulations under this section as to the use on roads of bicycles or tricycles may prohibit the sale or supply, or the offer of a sale or supply, of a bicycle or tricycle for delivery in such a condition that /he use thereof on a road in that condition would be a contravention of the regulations, but no provision made by virtue of this, subsection shall affect the validity of any contract or any rights arising under a contract.
(5) If a person sells, supplies or offers to sell or supply a bicycle or a tricycle in contravention of any prohibition imposed by regulations made by virtue of the foregoing subsection he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, unless he proves—

(a) that it was sold, supplied or offered for export from Great Britain; or

(b) that he had reasonable cause to believe that it would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used.'"

The noble Lord said: Of the four Amendments down in my name this one is of the most substance. Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, gives the
180
Minister power to make regulations as to the construction, equipment and use of motor vehicles. Section 70 of that Act, however, enables him to control by regulation only the number, nature and use of brakes and the audible warning devices to be fitted to pedal cycles. The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Minister the same kind of powers in relation to cycles as he has in relation to motor vehicles and trailers.
There are two points under the heading of intention. The first is to ensure that regulations already made about brakes can be enforced, because evidently there has proved to be some doubt about the vires of the regulations requiring brakes to be efficient and empowering the police to inspect them. That is the first intention. The second is to allow the Minister to make certain general regulations about the maintenance of pedal cycles in a safe condition. It may be said that the poor condition of cycles is not a very serious source of road danger, but police reports for 1958 attribute nearly 1,900 accidents to defects in cycles, which is only a little less than those attributed to defects in motor cars. I think your Lordships would agree it is desirable to make it illegal for pedal cycles in an unsafe condition to be used on the roads.
The regulations that it is in the Minister's mind to make would provide that all cycles used on the road should be maintained in a safe condition, and that any load carried should be carried in a way that no danger is likely to be caused. Perhaps they might also include that the rider shall be in such a position that he can properly control his machine and retain a full view of the road and traffic in front of him. Also, of course, the regulation would authorise persons to inspect cycles to see that the requirements of the regulations had been complied with. My right honourable friend does not have the intention to make detailed specific regulations as to other constructional features of bicycles, except about the maintenance and inspection of brakes, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do.
The new subsection (2) adds to Section 70 of the 1960 Act a power which enables the Minister to prohibit by regulations the sale of cycles which do not comply

181
with the regulations made under subsection (1). This again brings cycles into parallel with motor vehicles. But there is a much bigger private market in bicycles, and I do not think it is wholly appropriate to make it an offence under the Act to sell any cycle not complying with the regulations. These powers if taken now, will enable the Minister to take steps to deal with the sale of unroadworthy bicycles if it seems necessary to do so. Under Section 12 (2) of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, it is, of course, an offence to sell a reflector for a bicycle which does not comply with the regulations. But, oddly enough, it is not an offence to sell a bicycle without any lights or reflectors—or, indeed, without any brakes at all. I think that is sufficient justification for my Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 13 at the beginning insert the said subsections.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF NORTHESK: Might I ask the noble Lord whether the rear light of the bicycle is included in what the Minister proposes? To-day a great number of bicycles are constructed with dynamo lighting, an excellent system provided that the bicycle is in motion, but the moment the bicycle ceases to move, all the lighting on it stops. I think I am right in saying that under the 1960 Act, provided that the bicycle is within a reasonable distance of the left-hand side of the road, no offence is committed. I would suggest that often a dangerous position arises where a cyclist wishes to turn to his right on a road which has traffic travelling in both directions. Quite rightly, he signals, pulls to the centre of the road and halts there until approaching traffic has cleared, so that he may cross. At that moment he is completely non-illuminated, either in front or behind. I would suggest that on that occasion he is committing an offence. I wonder whether my noble friend could tell me whether some regulations are envisaged under this Amendment to cope with such a situation.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think the answer to the noble Earl is that nearly all dynamo sets have an auxiliary battery which can be switched on. Is that not so?
THE EARL OF NORTHESK: Not in every case.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Minister mentioned regulations concerning loads carried on bicycles. I think he mentioned dangerous loads. I do not see that referred to in Section 70 or in the new clause. But if what he says is the case, are regulations going to be made on the subject? Window-cleaners are one of the commonest types of users of bicycles with loads. As we all know, window-cleaners are highly competent cyclists, but the load which is carried might be considered by a police officer to be dangerous if the window-cleaner is carrying a bucket on the handlebars and a ladder over his shoulder. Does the Minister think that there could be any risk of such regulations being applied unreasonably in the case of window-cleaners and, of course, other commercial bicycle users as well?
LORD CHESHAM: May I deal with this matter backwards, coming straight away to the answer to the question of loads—
LORD LATHAM: You will have an accident if you do.
LORD CHESHAM: I trust I shall have nothing of the kind; I expect to sit down again exactly as I am now. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has made a perfectly reasonable point here. It is natural that when one is legislating for loads on bicycles the importance or otherwise of the window-cleaner must be something that one is bound to take into consideration. Expert as some are, others are perhaps not quite so expert, and there may be alternative means. But on that type and other types of load the Minister certainly has it in mind to be fairly specific, to avoid the kind of hardship about which the noble Earl is speaking. There are quite a number of other types of load. People have been known to carry half a sack of potatoes on their handlebars. It is reasonably unnecessary that these things should be carried. I will certainly call the attention of my right honourable friend to the noble Earl's point, to try to avoid any unreasonable application of these regulations.
Turning to dynamo lighting sets, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk,

183
has a point. Where an auxiliary battery is fitted, it is all right. I have no figures, but I believe that that often is not the case. I do not know how much of a problem to road safety is constituted by halting, in the middle of the road, but it could be quite considerable. I think that this is a point well worth while my mentioning to my right honourable friend when he comes to consider this matter, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having brought it up.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I revert to the question of loads on bicycles? I am sure all noble Lords—most of all, according to their own claims, noble Lords on the other side of the House—would be against imposing any regulations that are not shown to be necessary. We have all seen bicycles with strange loads on them, but is there any evidence that they cause accidents? For the most part, I should say that the bicyclists who carry the heavy loads and habitually carry the tools of their trade on their bicycles are men who are highly competent and do not have accidents. I would ask the noble Lord, before any such regulations are issued, to ask his right honourable friend to find out what are the facts; whether this is a cause of accidents or whether it is merely a question of administrative tidiness—somebody has seen an unreasonable load carried on a bicycle and thinks there ought to be regulations to stop it. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, I will.
Viscount CROSS: May I say one word about paragraph (1) (c) and the words "and reflectors"? I am not certain whether the Minister is going to be able to make regulations under this paragraph to enforce the fitting of reflector studs in the pedals of bicycles—when I say "reflector studs" I mean what are commonly known as "cat's eyes". Many of your Lordships will have seen these "cat's eyes" in the pedals of bicycles abroad and will know how effective they are. A bicycle fitted with "cat's eyes" in its pedals can be seen—I do not think I exaggerate—at a distance of three or four hundred yards when illuminated by the headlamps of a car. I do not think there is any one
184
other single feature that would make a bicycle safer on the roads at night. The cost of these pedals is not much, and I greatly hope that perhaps two years from now it will be the law of the land that all bicycles must be fitted with these pedals. I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said he was not making any regulations other than those concerning brakes. I hope he will change his mind on this subject.
LORD CHESHAM: Of course, I am interested to hear Lord Cross's contribution on this matter, and I had certainly previously heard that this type of reflector fitted on the pedal was a most effective measure. I understand that there are occasional objections, and of course this reflector is not called for at present as a reflector which the law prescribes. That, too, is a matter of which I might at the present stage take note. I do not think I can undertake to do more than that just at the moment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
7.50 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Amendments of Section 86 of principal Act
". Section eighty-six of the principal Act shall have effect subject to the Amendments specified in relation thereto in the Fourth Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is unable to be here, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. It should be considered together with Amendment No. 77.
The purpose of these Amendments is to give to the authorities, in prescribing the charges to be made for parking on highways, more flexibility than is provided by Section 86 of the principal Act. That section provides that where there are parking meters there are two possible charges, and two only: the initial standard payment for the standard period and half that amount for half that period. My noble friend is of the opinion that in certain areas more use could be made of parking meters, for

185
the general good, if the authorities had rather more flexibility in prescribing possible charges and periods. He thinks, for instance, that greater flexibility is needed in many seaside resorts. I believe that my noble friend has discussed the matter with my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary and others at his Ministry. The sole object is not to affect any existing scheme of parking meters, but to give the authorities greater flexibility in future, should such flexibility be needed.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD WALERAN: I should like very much to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I have recently had the privilege of visiting all the States in Australia and meeting a number of Ministers of Transport, traffic engineers and commissioners of police. Throughout the States in the big cities you find the system of the flexibility of the time of the parking meter. It is a most useful thing. So far as I see, this clause will do no harm; and all that is being suggested at the moment is that the power to be able to do it should be put into the Bill in case it is desired later on to use it. I wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
LORD CHESHAM: I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford definitely has a case here, and I think he has made it. I am glad to hear the support of my noble friend Lord Waleran. Now that we have more experience of the working of the parking-meter schemes, and now that they are becoming more generally acceptable to the public and to motorists, I think there is quite a bit to be said for giving the Minister greater freedom to prescribe different periods and charges in the designation orders that he makes. I think it is quite right to say that there is very real evidence that the demands for parking space in different parts of the country will be of a widely varying sort; and local requirements are likely to vary, I think, even more considerably outside London than they are in it.
It seems very reasonable that this extra flexibility should be introduced, and I should be quite happy to accept
186
these few Amendments in principle. I am going to ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw them to-day on the ground solely of drafting. I must record for the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that I think he has made a most praiseworthy effort of drafting in what is, under the Road Traffic Act a very complicated set of provisions. I compliment him on the effort he has made, but I think we ought to look at that again. If my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment I will undertake to do that and to put an Amendment down at the next stage.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I certainly should not wish to oppose this, but I wonder whether the Minister could elucidate a little more. Is it the contention that this lack of flexibility is leading to insufficient use of the parking space available in cities, or is it leading to excessive revenue accruing to the local authorities who run the parking meters? How is it supposed to work?
LORD CONESFORD: My noble friend will know better, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Derwent thinks that the principal need for flexibility exists because it would enable parking meters to be tried in certain areas where they have not yet been tried at all, simply because the limitations and the charges that can be made would make them unattractive for the use of the places concerned. I think that that is 'the main point, but my noble friend the Minister can probably amplify what I have said.
LORD CHESHAM: I should like to elucidate a little, because the real reason is, in fact, none of those at which the noble Earl has had a guess. The root of the matter is that in any particular parking area only one specific period of time can be prescribed under the Act—the standard time. It is normally two hours in 'London, but it can be another period. The only flexibility within that is that you are allowed to sell half the time for half the fee. You prescribe a period and a fee which are standard, and you may sell halves. You may not, in the same parking area, prescribe a standard time which is different. There can 'be only one, and it is proving in various areas that two hours, or four hours or five hours, is not necessarily the proper time to meet the local demand.

187
The case of a seaside town has been mentioned. In the shopping area of a town they will probably want a shorter period, but in some cases they will want a longer period. On the sea front they will want longer, but there ought to be provision for shorter periods as well. It can be done only by having different standard times in different car parks—so that you have one with five hours, say, at one end of the town, and another for two hours at the other end. The need is to give greater flexibility within parking areas, which I think will be for the benefit of the country as a whole.
LORD CONESFORD: I thank my noble friend for the reply he has given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Vehicles left on footways
". Any person leaving a vehicle on a public footway in such a position that it may cause danger to the users of the said footway shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £5."
The noble Lord said: I hesitate to introduce what I think must be new law, because it involves the police in more anxiety and responsibility, and it involves the motorist in some trouble and care. I want to make it quite clear that I am not opposed to the motorist in any way—I am a very considerable motorist myself—but I think it is necessary to deal with this matter. That is my first point. More and more motorists are parking their motor cars half on the pavement—sometimes wholly on the pavement—either sideways, with two wheels on the pavement or with the boot and back of the car, sometimes a very extensive back, sticking out on to the pavement. My first submission is that this is unnecessary; my second is that it is unfair.
We are more and more making it difficult for people to walk on the roads which, as has been rightly pointed out, are the Queen's highway and may be said traditionally to belong to all, not least the pedestrians. We are more and more making it difficult for them—and I think rightly so. But it seems to me fair enough to say that the road shall
188
be more and more for the motorist and the pavement more and more for the walker. Indeed, I think the pavement should be wholly for the walker. But if we must include any wheeled carriage, let us include the pram.
My only two other sentences are that I think people sometimes park their motor bicycles, their bicycles or their mopeds against a shop window, and the shopkeeper comes out and shoos them away. That is all well and good, but I do not think he has any right to shoo them away. When somebody parks a car on the pavement, a policeman comes and says, "You should not do that, Sir", but I do not think he has any right to say that. So I ask, because it is timely and because it is necessary, that this clause should receive your Lordships' sympathy.
I shall be very surprised if the noble Earl who answers me does not say that the wording of my Amendment is inadequate. I am quite sure it is: it is the wording of an amateur. I suspect that the word "vehicle" may not cover all the creatures that may be used on roads which I have in mind to cover, such as bicycles, mopeds, motor bicycles and so on. So it may be that "vehicles" should be altered. It may be also that "danger" should be altered, and that "obstruction" might be a better word. It might be hard to prove in court that the presence of a vehicle across a pavement was a danger until danger had actually occurred. So perhaps "obstruction" is the right word there. Perhaps, also, my fine is not harsh enough; I do not know. But it seems to me clear that the words mean what I want to say, and I am sure that most reasonable men, including your Lordships, will understand what I mean to say. I therefore ask that this Amendment be given consideration, and I shall be very happy to withdraw it if the noble Earl says that he will do that between now and the next stage.
I have one last word. I have had quite a number of letters from blind persons who tell me that it is peculiarly disadvantageous to them, when they walk to work, to meet motor cars and motor vehicles on the pavement. They at least feel that the footpath is for them to walk on. It may surprise your Lordships to know that, having made some inquiries, I find that there are no fewer than 13,000

189
blind persons known to the major societies who are employed in this country and who do walk part of the way to work. I do not think that it is a good thing to pass special laws for the blind: they themselves would rather wish to be treated as ordinary persons. But if, by passing a little clause that is justified on its merits, we can help blind people, then perhaps we ourselves may be pleased. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Fraser of Lonsdale.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I should like to welcome this Amendment, and to support it most heartily. The present tendency seems to be to park cars at right-angles to the roadway, with the rear end projecting over the pavement. Sometimes three feet of the pavement is obstructed; and it is not only the blind people to whom it is a hazard, but sighted people as well. Certainly in poor light, and with the tendency of motor car design to go into great fins, standing about four feet from the ground, this practice is positively dangerous and not merely an obstruction. As to whether there is a drafting flaw in saying, leaving a vehicle on a public footway "when in fact the vehicle's wheels are in the roadway but the car projects over the footway, I would say that that is a matter for the draftsman, and is something which I should not like to go into now. But I believe that it is a menace to life in cities nowadays, and it would be a good thing if it could be stopped.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is a matter, I think, for the police rather than for Parliament, because our legislation already makes it an offence to park on the pavement, or to leave a vehicle on a road (which legally includes the footway, so that there is no difficulty about the definition there) in such a position as to cause danger to other road-users. It is an offence in three separate ways. First of all, there is the 1960 Act, Section 16. My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale need not have apologised for the wording of his Amendment, because it very closely follows the wording of this Section 16, though no doubt by accident. The section provides that it is an offence to
190
leave a vehicle on a road—and I would repeat that "road" includes a footway—in such a position as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road. The maximum penalty here under the 1960 Act is a fine of £20, which is being raised under the present Bill to a maximum of £50.
Then there is Regulation 89 of the Construction and Use Regulations, which again makes it possible for the police to deal with obstructions by vehicles on the carriageway; and there is no reason at all why this provision should not also be used to deal with parking on the pavement, particularly if the vehicle is projecting over the carriageway. I do not think the police make much use of either of these two provisions—mainly, no doubt, because they are generally in the habit of proceeding under another Statute, which is not one of those affected by this Bill. That is the Highways Act, 1835, which makes it an offence to drive any carriage of any kind, or any cart, on a footpath. I understand that, at least in the metropolitan area, it is always the practice of the police to take action under this Act. We should prefer that they would sometimes take action under the other provisions which I have mentioned, because the penalties are higher. In the case of this 1835 Act the penalty is only 40s. But that is not a matter in which either the Home Secretary or other Ministers have any authority to give directions. The question whether proceedings should be taken in any particular case is always one for the discretion of the chief officer of the police.
The real question here is one of enforcement, and it would not help the situation to enact a new clause in this Bill when the existing law, if it is used, is already so fully adequate to meet the case. However, I am grateful to my noble friend for having drawn attention to the position, and for having ventilated it this evening.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I am grateful to the noble Earl for having explained the matter to me so fully and so clearly. I hope that the few words we have said to-night may become known, and may cause the police to clear motor cars off the pavements when they see them. I may say that last night in Regent's Park I counted eight cars which

191
were on the pavement. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 27 to 31 agreed to.
First Schedule: Part I [Offences involving obligatory disqualification]:
8.9 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in Part I, to leave out paragraph 7. The noble Lord said: I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the offence of driving a motor vehicle uninsured is included in the list of offences involving obligatory disqualification. Now by the Road Traffic Act, 1956, compulsory disqualification for this offence was removed because it was then realised that there were many insurance offences of a technical nature in regard to which such a penalty was considered far too harsh. In fact, hardship to other road-users injured in such circumstances has been prevented to a large extent by the Motor Insurers' Bureau's scheme, which enables them to obtain compensation. The deliberate intention to drive a motor vehicle while uninsured against third party risk is a very serious offence indeed. On the other hand, I suggest that it is essential to allow a discretion to the magistrates concerning the penalty to be imposed in the case of convictions where there is no deliberate intent to commit an offence, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18 line 41, leave out paragraph 7.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD CONESFORD: I rise only to point out for the record what is already known to noble Lords in this Committee, and that is that this Amendment has the support of my noble and learned friend, Lord Goddard, who regretted that he could not stay later this evening. My noble and learned friend is of the opinion, as a result of his experience, that the offence described in paragraph 7 would be better in the second Part of the Schedule than in the first.
8.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is associated, I think, with another Amendment later on which re-enacts the provision in Part II of the Schedule, and the question at issue, therefore, is whether the disqualification should be
192
compulsory, except for special reasons, under Part I of the Schedule, or whether it should be left to the judgment of the magistrate under Part 11 of the Schedule. My noble friend Lord Teynham mentioned that between 1930 and 1956 disqualification for this offence was compulsory, and that it was placed at the discretion of the magistrates by the 1956 Act because it was thought that compulsory disqualification might be apt to cause hardship. My noble friend did not mention that between 1955 and 1959, In the years since it ceased to involve compulsory disqualification, the number of offences of driving without proper insurance more than doubled. In 1955, there were 22,857 convictions for this offence, of which over 19.000 were disqualified.
LORD TEYNHAM: If I might interrupt my noble friend for a moment, could he say how many of those offences were the evasion of third party insurance?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No; I am giving the total figures. There were 22,857 offences, of which 19,000 were disqualified. The remainder were exempted from disqualification by the discretion which the court exercised, and could still exercise under Part I of the Schedule if there were special reasons. By 1959, the number of offences resulting in conviction had risen to 47,930, more than double the 1956 figure. Even if you take into consideration the rise in the number of motor vehicles on the roads, the proportion works out at just under double. The percentage of disqualifications to convictions dropped a great deal, from 80 per cent. to 37 per cent.; but whether that was because a great many of the offences were technical, or whether a great deal of leniency had been exercised, is a question which could not answer at this moment.
My noble friend has mentioned the Motor Insurers' Bureau, which I think, as a whole with some success, tries to arrange that people who are injured in an accident, even although the driver is not properly insured and cannot sometimes be found, receive compensation by arrangement between insurance companies. I do not think that that is a good reason for exempting drivers from making sure that they are properly insured against third party risk. The

193
law—if I might just look forward for a moment to my noble friend's other Amendment about knowing whether you were insured or not—presumes, I think I am right in saying, that you know what your insurance policy contains. If you have taken reasonable care to ascertain it, and have taken reasonable advice, but in spite of that you still do not know—for instance, if you have been deliberately misled—then you have a good defence. But if you do not know because you have not taken the proper trouble to ascertain what your policy is about, then the law presumes you do know.
My noble friend Lord Conesford has mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, would have liked to speak in favour of this Amendment, and I should very much have liked to hear what he had to say about it. This is not the sort of thing one ought to decide in a hurry. I do not think I could accept the Amendment without a good deal more information and argument from those of your Lordships who have great experience in the matter. I would put it to my noble friend that the special conditions which apply to Part I ought to relieve the court from the necessity of imposing disqualification in cases where they think it is unduly hard or unfair that that should be done.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his views. I understand it would be fairer to look at the matter again, and I think it would be most useful to the House if we were to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, had to say on this point. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule: Part II [Offences involving discretionary disqualification]:
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after paragraph 8, to insert:

("—An offence under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (injuring persons by wanton or furious driving), committed by a person having charge of a motor vehicle.

—")

The noble Lord said We now come to a series of Amendments designed to restore to the courts the power to dis-
194
qualify which they possess at this moment but which, under the Bill as it now stands, has been taken away from them. I dealt with this matter on Second Reading, as did many other noble Lords in all parts of the House; and I also dealt with it in an Amendment to Clause 3 of this Bill. But my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, in resisting the Amendment which I then moved, said, quite rightly, that the right way of doing this was by Amendments sot down to the Schedule; and it is the first of these Amendments which I now move.
This Amendment, No. 68A, restores the right to disqualify for an offence under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 (injuring persons by wanton or furious driving), committed by a person having charge of a motor vehicle. At present that offence is the third offence in the list, contained in the Eleventh Schedule to the 1960 Act, of offences for which the court can disqualify, only manslaughter and causing death by reckless or dangerous driving having precedence. I know of no good reason for the omission of this very serious offence from the list of offences for which the courts can disqualify.
From the intervention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the debate on Second Reading, I can well understand that the prosecution of a driver of a motor vehicle for this offence might be very rare indeed, because there are generally sections of the Road Traffic Acts under which he can be more appropriately prosecuted and disqualified. But there is still the possibility that there may be a prosecution and conviction under the Act of 1861, and nobody, in any quarter of the House, would dispute that if there is such a prosecution and conviction the person concerned deserves to be disqualified. Nor would it be true to say that a prosecution under this Act will never, in any circumstances, be necessary. Most of the other offences of dangerous driving are offences that can be committed on a road. This present offence is not limited to a public highway at all. It may be, indeed, an unusual thing for such an offence as is described in the 1861 Act to be committed on private property, but there is a possibility.
To sum up, whilst a prosecution under this Act would be very rare indeed, the fact remains that such a prosecution is possible; and if such a prosecution takes place, and the person accused is convicted, he undoubtedly ought to be disqualified. The final point is that no harm of any sort will be done if this Amendment is accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend has waited very patiently to reach the series of Amendments at which, to our great delight, we have now arrived. This one, about the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, I have naturally looked at very carefully, because my noble friend raised it on Second Reading and, as he remembers, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made an interruption from the Woolsack during my noble friend's speech. When I replied, I said—and this is a matter which I always approach with some diffidence, because I have not any legal training and this is largely a legal question [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 65), col. 513]:
"I do not think I need go into that any further except to say, with respect, that, not having any legal training, I find it very difficult to see how anybody could drive wantonly and furiously without also driving either dangerously or carelessly, in which case he would be disqualified under the Act in any case."
I have taken the best legal advice that I could since Second Reading and I am told that this is true. It would be inconceivable that anybody could drive wantonly and furiously on the road without rendering himself liable for an offence under both previous legislation and this Bill, which would involve disqualification.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Earl say whether that would apply off the roadway?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am coming to that in a moment. I have done my best to find an example of any prosecution which has taken place during our lifetime under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. I have been able to discover only one, and that was not against a man who was in charge of a motor vehicle. He was a tram driver in Glasgow who drove his tram
196
wantonly and furiously towards a person in front of him. He could not be deprived of his driving licence, because he did not have a driving licence. I have not been able to discover any case of a man who had a driving licence and who committed an offence of this kind on the road.
I think that this provision was passed mainly with the intention of punishing people who drove dangerously with horses. If a man did that to-day, we could not prevent him from driving his horses dangerously again by taking away his car licence. I would say that the same applies to the possibility which the noble Lord has just raised about driving wantonly and furiously on private property off the road. Of course, that is a bad and wicked thing to do, and anybody who did that could be punished in all sorts of ways, and possibly under this Act; but by depriving him of his driving licence we should in no way prevent him from doing the same thing again, because a person does not need to have a driving licence in order to drive a vehicle on private property or in a field or, indeed, anywhere except on the public road. So that the effect of depriving a man of his driving licence for driving wantonly and furiously off a public road would in no way prevent him from committing exactly the same offence again next day, because he does not need a driving licence to do it.
The only thing which does puzzle me, and which no doubt provided my noble friend with his reason for moving this Amendment, is why the Offences against the Subject Act, 1861, was ever included in the 1956 Road Traffic Act. It was not included in previous Acts. For some reason best known to themselves, those who drafted the 1956 Act chose, for the first time, to insert this offence under the 1861 Act as one of those for which a motorist could have his licence removed. Before that, it was not an offence for which a motorist could have his licence removed, and why it should be put into the 1956 Act I have failed to ascertain. I suggest to your Lordships that not only would it perhaps be unnecessary but it might also tend to bring our legislation into some ridicule if we were to retain it now.
LORD CONESFORD: In moving this Amendment, I said that, of course,

197
a prosecution for an offence under this Act would be extremely rare, but it was not impossible, and if such an offence did take place it was conclusive proof, so far as I could see, that a man should be deprived of his driving licence. My noble friend, for whose perspicacity and intelligence I have the highest regard, says that to commit this offence on private property a motorist does not need a driving licence. Of course, he does not; I never said that he did. But the fact remains that if a man were so minded to drive recklessly, it might be a real deterrent to him if he could be deprived of his licence, which alone makes it possible for him legally to drive a motor car on the road. I think that this is a good reason for retaining this power to disqualify that exists at the present moment. Nevertheless, I do not say that this Amendment compares in importance with some of the others which we are about to consider, and, since I do not wish to weary the Committee on the less important Amendments, I do not press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.32 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: This Amendment restores to the list of offences for which the court can disqualify an offence under Section 8 (2) of the principal Act (carrying a passenger on a motor cycle in contravention of the section). The section prohibits the carrying of more than one person, in addition to the driver, on a two-wheeled motor cycle, and provides that the passenger must sit astride the motor cycle on a proper seat securely fixed behind the driver's seat. I apprehend that the reason for Section 8 is that the Government believe this section to be necessary for road safety; they believe that a contravention of these provisions in regard to a motor cycle would increase the danger on the roads. The Government propose to increase the monetary penalty. The monetary penalty is something about which the reckless motor cyclist may not care at all. What he may be very much concerned about is whether or not he will be prohibited from driving altogether through the loss of his licence. If this is of importance for road safety, on what possible grounds is the most effective of all deterrents removed? I wish to
198
know from Her Majesty's Government whether they now consider this offence less important than they used to think. If they do, I wonder why they have increased the monetary penalty. If, on the other hand, they still think it important, I cannot imagine why they suppose that the young man should not be deterred from committing this offence by running the risk of disqualification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 34, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 8 (2) of the principal Act (carrying passenger on motor cycle in contravention of the section).

For the words "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection, there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.")

—(Lord Conesford.

LORD CHESHAM: I have been listening with interest to my noble friend's reasons for advancing this Amendment, and I have also been thinking about this particular Amendment and what is involved in this offence. In pillion-riding there are only three things that can be done wrong: one is that you have not the proper kind of seat securely fixed, in which case there is obviously an element of danger; another is that you do not ride astride; and the other is that you have three people on the machine. If any of your Lordships have, as I once did, ridden three on a machine, you will know that it is a very dangerous thing to do; and fortunately it is rare. So far as riding on the pillion astride is concerned, I know that they do it differently in Italy. I do not know whether my noble friend holds any brief for them, or whether there are different shapes, but to me it looks highly dangerous. I think that is borne out by the fact that the motor-cycle world has accepted this state of affairs for many years, and the number of offences committed under this section is not large. I think that there is a case for including this Amendment, and, on balance, I feel inclined to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: This Amendment seeks to add to the list of offences for which the courts can disqualify an

199
offence under Section 66 (1) of the principal Act (contravention of requirement as to test certificate). This section of the principal Act provides for obligatory test certificates for certain old motor vehicles. If a test certificate is not issued, it is unlawful for a person to use the vehicle on the road. If he does, then under the present law he can be disqualified; and I think that is right. On this matter the Government's present proposal is, frankly, extraordinary. They increase the monetary fine for a first offence from £20 to £50; but for subsequent offences they greatly diminish the existing penalty by abolishing both three months' imprisonment and disqualification. Either it is necessary to have these tests of old vehicles, and to provide that until the vehicle concerned has passed the test it is unlawful to drive it on the road, or it is unnecessary. If it is necessary, I cannot see why, in the interests of road safety, the most real of all the penalties and deterrents against the evasion of the law should be abolished. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 41, at end insert—

("—An offence] under section 66 (1) of the principal Act (contravention of requirement as to test certificate).

For the words from "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.")

—(Lord Conesford.)

LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry that I cannot quite so readily accept my noble friend's arguments in this case as I was able to do on the last Amendment. When I have explained why, I think he will understand a little more about our view of the penalties to which he has called attention, taken in conjunction with our attempt to rationalise the penalties for this offence, about which I think he already knows, having regard to modern conditions and the relative gravity of the various offences. This I look on as much more of a technical offence. It is one that can be serious, perhaps, but will not necessarily involve danger. The point is that if there is an infringement, and danger is involved, it will be possible to bring a prosecution for contravention of the appropriate Construction and Use Regulations under Section 64, a
200
section which is already included in Part II of the First Schedule. We thought, therefore, that this offence was not an appropriate one to bring into this Schedule and would not require a provision for disqualification or count towards the obligatory cumulative disqualification under Clause 3. Therefore, we thought it right to put it in Part III, and I hope that, on what I have said, my noble friend will leave it there.
8.39 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: I am not wholly happy about the reply the Parliamentary Secretary has given. If I may venture to say so, I went through the whole of this question of the testing of vehicles. In the 1956 Act, at one time the Government decided to drop the requirement of compulsory testing of old vehicles. The arguments that were advanced by the Opposition, showing how serious is the result of unsuitable and unserviceable old vehicles—perhaps I should not say old vehicles, but unserviceable vehicles, many of which are old—and the figures which were given by the Opposition were such that the Government really had to look at the matter again. It is for that reason that, despite the difficulty and the cost of these compulsory tests of vehicles, they have been introduced. It has taken a long time before it has been possible to devise the necessary machinery for these tests to be carried out.
It is perfectly true, as my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that in some ceases it may not involve any direct danger upon the roads; but in point of fact, as he knows, the regulations which were made under the Act of 1956 applied only to the most serious defects in vehicles more than 10 years old. That was done for purely practical reasons, and it applied, generally, to brakes, lighting and points of that kind, things which have a direct bearing on road safety. And in the vast majority of cases, where a pet-son knowingly and wantonly drives upon the roads a vehicle which has not satisfied the requirements laid down by the Minister he is quite deliberately doing something which involves great danger.
I do not ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary necessarily to accept this Amendment in its present form, but I think that if he looks at it again, and considers how very modest are the

201
requirements at the present time under his right honourable friend's regulations, he will agree that anyone who wantonly and deliberately drives upon the roads a vehicle which has not been subjected to those tests—and it might well be knowingly driven after it has failed to satisfy the tests—is committing a serious offence. I think that this Bill ought to be amended, in order to provide that in such a case there should be a discretionary power of disqualification. I do ask my right honourable friend to undertake to look at this matter again between now and the Report stage.
8.43 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): May I say something to my noble friend about this Amendment, because I think perhaps there are rather more general considerations involved in this than meet the eye at first sight? I think he has really to consider whether what he is doing is ultimately, and as a whole, going to improve road safety. I have been very anxious throughout, and I am quite certain in my own mind that the one constructive thing we can do to increase road safety is to impose in some form or another a kind of automatic disqualification, which we have been urging, and which the House passed after a Division.
I may be wrong about this, but I should like to record my opinion that if we are going to get public opinion with us on that—and to my mind it is the only thing worth doing if we are going to make a sizeable contribution to solving this problem—we must try to keep out of this Part of the Schedule offences which it might be argued ought not to be there. I quite agree that the noble Lord has made a very sensible case about this, and of course I shall report what has been said to my right honourable friend. But my own judgment in the matter—and I should like him to consider it—is that we shall not add to road safety by inserting a great number of new offences, or re-inserting a lot of old offences, into Part II of the First Schedule. Because although, in theory, disqualification may be imposed, in fact it is not imposed by magistrates in these cases. It is unreal to suppose that that is what happens in magistrates' courts, or that it will happen in cases of this kind. All
202
that he will achieve, if Part II of the Schedule is overburdened, is to make the provision regarding automatic disqualification so unpopular that it will be unworkable, or possibly unpassable through Parliament. I think it will do a great deal of harm if it is done.
Having said that, I will of course see that what has been said is reported to my right honourable friend, who is anxious, as we all are, not to let people who take deliberate risks escape without disqualification in suitable cases, but I would like to tell you what my own judgment is about this, because I think it may affect quite a number of cases of this class.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like only to say a few words. I am going to ask leave to withdraw the present Amendment, but in view of what my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House has just said, I want to make one thing as clear as I can. I quite agree that the re-drafting of subsection (3) of Clause 3 is a difficult and complicated matter, deserving much thought and the greatest skill from those who are devoting their minds to it, but I want to make it absolutely clear that, in my view, the consideration as to what that subsection ought to be must not lead us to omit from Part II of the First Schedule anything that ought to be there on its own merits. For the reasons given in the first speech opposing my present Amendment, and the possibility of there being other remedies open to the authorities in prosecuting, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: This Amendment would restore to the courts the power to disqualify for an offence under Section 97 of the principal Act: that is, driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive, a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Act relating to the minimum age for driving motor vehicles of different classes and descriptions. Your Lordships will be familiar with the fact that you can drive a motor cycle at the age of 16, a motor car at the age of 17, and a heavy locomotive at the age of 21. These minimum ages are, presumably, prescribed because they are thought to contribute to road safety; if so, I should have thought that

203 in the event of those provisions being disregarded there ought to be a power to disqualify. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

"(—An offence under section 97 of the principal Act (driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive, a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Act relating to the minimum age for driving motor vehicles of different classes and descriptions).

—")

(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We originally took the view that offences in respect of this section might be of a technical nature, not necessarily involving danger, and that it would be inappropriate that such offences should be disqualifiable and hence count for the purpose of obligatory cumulative disqualification under Clause 3 of the Bill. As your Lordships know, one of our anxieties about this Bill is that if you put too many offences in Part II, which can be totted up, you may reduce its acceptability to the courts and to the public. But there is, of course, no obligation under Part II to impose disqualification, and in view of the considerable support on Second Reading that disqualification should be available for offences of this type, we have decided to accept my noble friend's Amendment. As I have explained to him, we shall have to ask him to withdraw it and to introduce a new one, or the Government will introduce another one on Report, which I have actually got typed out. Unfortunately, I was unable to bring it to my noble friend's notice until just too late for him to familiarise himself sufficiently with it to move it now, and I think it will be more satisfactory if he withdraws this Amendment and we will produce the Amendment, which I have shown him, at the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD: I am most grateful to my noble friend for showing me his draft Amendment just now, but I think noble Lords in all quarters prefer to have before them the matter under discussion. Therefore, I think the most convenient course will be for me to ask
204
leave to withdraw my present Amendment, and to ask my noble friend whether he will be good enough to move the Amendment in the form of his draft as a Government Amendment on Report. I understand that is his intention, and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to insert in Part II, after paragraph 22

("—An offence under section 98 (3) of the principal Act (driving or employing a person to drive without licence).

For the words from "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.")

The noble Lord said: This restores to the courts the power which they at present possess to disqualify for an offence under Section 98 (3) of the principal Act: driving or employing a person to drive without a licence. In this case, the Government propose to increase the penalty for a first offence but to abolish imprisonment for subsequent offences and to abolish disqualification altogether. I am doubtful of the wisdom of taking away this power from the courts. In an earlier debate my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House treated the offence of not having a licence as simply an offence against the Revenue. I am advised by magistrates and judges who have great experience of this branch of the law that it is a great deal more than that. After all, the present Bill has new provisions about the endorsements that have to be made on licences, which are very useful for the enforcement of the law. It seems very odd if we do not provide for the motorist who causes great difficulties to the authorities by saying, "Rather than have a licence with a lot of endorsements, it is much more convenient not to have a licence at all". In some of these offences legal difficulties may arise if the courts have no power to disqualify for the offence I have described. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 49, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD HAWKE: Does not a rather strange possible consequence arise if we make this one of the list of offences

205
for which a cumulative three offences constitutes compulsory withdrawal of the licence? It includes not necessarily only the person who drives a vehicle on the road without a licence, but the man who employs him. One can well imagine a state of affairs in which a manager of a big undertaking, who is presumably the employer, may find that, through carelessness or otherwise of his drivers, no fewer than three of them may have allowed their licences to lapse. They then drive their vehicles on the road and get caught, and the three offences count up to disqualify the manager of the undertaking himself from driving. That seems to be a very queer result, and follows from this extraordinary clause which my noble Leader has undertaken to reconsider and redraft—this compulsory disqualification for a third offence of a mixed bag of trivialities and gravities. For that reason, I wonder whether we are right in inserting my noble friend's Amendment without sonic sort of qualification on this particular point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Without wishing to anticipate anything my noble friend wants to say, perhaps he would allow me on1 this Amendment to make some reference to his next Amendment about provisional licences, which I am proposing to accept. As for this Amendment, we could not agree that all offences under Section 98 (3) should be included in Part II and should be capable of being totted up so as to impose compulsory removal of a licence if the offence is committed three times. A good many offences under Section 98 are likely to be purely technical. A driver might forget to renew a driving licence and pay his 15s. for a day or two, and although that is careless of him it would hardly be right that this should count as one of the offences which could be added up and result in a compulsory removal of the licence. I think there is great force in what my noble friend Lord Hawke has said about the employer. Although the employer is, of course, usually responsible for seeing that his employees have driving licences, it may be difficult for him to check occasional carelessness on the part of his subordinates. While he may be liable for any fine which would result, it would be a little inappropriate that the employer himself should be
206
deprived of his driving licence on account of three offences in two years on the part of his servants. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment.
This is where is impinges upon the next Amendment, to which I have already referred. The point has been made by a number of people that it often happens that a person who is entitled to drive only on a provisional licence fails to apply for such a licence. If he is caught driving without supervision or "L"-plates he has committed the offence only of driving without a licence, and cannot be charged with the offence of contravening the conditions laid down for holders of provisional licences, which is dealt with in the next Amendment of my noble friend.
What I should be willing to do would be to put down at a later stage an Amendment which would provide that disqualification could be ordered for the offence of driving without a licence in those cases only where the person involved would have been entitled to apply for a provisional licence—that is to say, where he has not, in fact, passed the appropriate driving test. I think it is appropriate that I should mention that, without anticipating anything my noble friend may wish to say on the next Amendment, although I am afraid I cannot accept this one.
LORD CONESFORD: I am again grateful to my noble friend. On his undertaking to introduce on the Report stage the Amendment he has just described, which does most of what I had in mind, I ask leave to withdraw my present Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CONESFORD: My noble friend's indication, in dealing with the last Amendment, that he was going to accept this one, makes it possible for me to deal with it very briefly. This Amendment restores to the court the power of disqualification for an offence under Section 102 (3) of the principal Act (failure to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence). Those noble Lords who were present in the debate on Second Reading know the great importance attached to this by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who said that this was an offence for which it was her invariable

207
practice, as a magistrate, to disqualify. I am also authorised to say that the restoration of the power to disqualify in this case has the strong support of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 102 (3) of the principal Act (failure to comply with conditions of provisional licence).

For the words "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to "or to imprisonment" there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment.")

(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This was another matter which we omitted from Part II, partly because we were anxious not to overcrowd that Part with offences which might have the cumulative effect of imposing compulsory disqualification. But after considering the arguments put forward by many noble Lords on Second Reading, we have decided that we can accept my noble friend's Amendment, as I have already indicated.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: The purpose of this Amendment is to restore to the court the power to disqualify for an offence under Section 192 (2) of the principal Act, which is driving a heavy goods vehicle, or employing a person to drive a heavy goods vehicle, on a road in contravention of the section. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 192 (2) of the principal Act (driving a heavy goods vehicle, or employing a person to drive a heavy goods vehicle, on a road in contravention of the section).

—")

(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is another Amendment which has a slight flavour of unreality about it. It provides that disqualification can be ordered if a driver of a heavy goods vehicle does not have a special licence, which was necessary before the war. Now the only
208
different qualification required to drive a heavy goods vehicle is that you must be over 21. Since the beginning of the war it is no longer necessary to have a special licence in addition to the ordinary licence. The need for special licence was suspended at the beginning of the war; it has never been renewed, and my right honourable friend the Minister has no present intention of bringing this part of the Act back into effect. It would therefore perhaps be a little unreal if we were to provide that disqualification should be imposed for doing something which cannot be done. The Minister has no reason to think that the lack of a special licence in any way adds to the danger on the roads in present circumstances. Therefore, he has no intention of bringing back this pre-war provision which is in suspense. I hope my noble friend will not wish me to argue that we ought to provide in advance for the possibility that in some future generation some future Minister might bring it back. I think perhaps it would be a little unreal to do so.
LORD CONESFORD: I thank my noble friend for his explanation. The reason why I put down this Amendment is that this offence is at present No. 19 in the Eleventh Schedule to the 1960 Act. But in view of what my noble friend has just said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.3 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: This is the most important of all the Amendments that I have brought before this Committee. This is the Amendment which provides for the continuance of the power to disqualify for an offence under Section 217 (1) of the principal Act (taking a motor vehicle without authority). My noble friend Lord Dundee was good enough to say that I had convinced him of the necessity of my present Amendment when he made his final speech on the Second Reading, and I hope that none of his thought in the interval has made him doubt the conclusion to which he then came. The view which I formed was supported in every section of the House—by the noble Lord, Lord Molson; by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It is very strongly supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard and by my noble and

209
learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, among others. This offence is so serious that there is a considerable volume of opinion that it ought to be one of the offences for which there is compulsory disqualification under Part I. I have not gone so far as that, but I beg to move the present Amendment, which would add that offence to those for which the courts can disqualify, as they are now doing.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 217 (1) of the principal Act (taking motor vehicle without authority).

For paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both a fine and such imprisonment.")

—(Lord Conesford.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend is going a little too far when he says that he convinced me on the Second Reading. I did not say that I had been convinced. All I said was that I thought my noble friend had made a strong case, which is not quite the same thing. However, we have reflected upon this and we have decided to accept my noble friend's Amendment, which I expected would be discussed under the previous Amendment in the name of Lord Elton, but that was not moved. I should just like to remind your Lordships that the reason why this was not included among those offences for which disqualification may be ordered was the fact that taking somebody's car without leave does not in itself, involve anything dangerous. It is very wrong, very wicked and very bad; and the man ought to be punished. But he has not necessarily done anything dangerous. What has weighed most with us in deciding to accept the Amendment is the presumption that the majority of people who go off for joyrides and take other people's cars without leave do, in fact, drive in a dangerous manner, and I think your Lordships were fairly unanimous in desiring that this should be included in the Bill as a disqualifiable offence. We are therefore ready to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: This is the only Amendment which introduces a ground for disqualification which does not at present exist. As noble Lords have just heard, it will now remain possible to disqualify for taking a motor vehicle without authority. It has sometimes been argued, however, that it was rather illogical to be able to disqualify for taking a vehicle without authority when it was impossible to disqualify for the more serious offence of larceny of a motor car. As I informed noble Lords at an earlier stage, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has had experience of cases where a man has pleaded guilty to the larceny of a motor car simply in order to avoid the risk of disqualification for the lesser offence. It was after discussion with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that I put down this Amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, also stated the case, at an earlier stage, for not limiting the power of disqualification entirely to offences under the Road Traffic Acts. I think that in general I should not advocate going very much beyond that; but in this particular case, in view of the matters brought to my notice by the Lord Chief Justice, I think it would be a good thing to add larceny of a motor car to the list of offences for which the courts can disqualify. Larceny of a motor car is very often the precursor of many other crimes, and I think with the present record of crime, and the use made of motor cars in the commission of those crimes and in facilitating escape, we shall be well advised to add larceny of a motor vehicle to those offences for which courts have power to disqualify. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 49, at end insert ("—Larceny of a motor vehicle—").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I hope my noble friend will allow me to say that I think he has made out a fairly strong case, though without admitting that I am convinced by it. There are, I think, two important differences between this and the previous Amendment which we have just agreed. One difference is that although larceny of a motor car is a much graver offence than borrowing a motor car without leave, it does not seem to have much relevance—indeed,

211
my noble friend did not argue that it had any relevance—to road safety. It might be argued that a man who stole a car with the intention of selling it would be exceptionally careful in driving it away so that he might not damage it.
But the real argument which my noble friend put forward, which is not really relevant to the question of safety, is that it is often done by people who are going to commit some other crime. If you hit a man on the head and knock him out and steal a bag of money with £4,000 in it, you have done a wicked thing and ought to be put in prison for a long time. But is it particularly relevant at the same time to take away any motor vehicle licence which he may have? Again, if you commit any crime which is even remotely connected with someone who is driving, would any magistrate or judge, or any reasonable system of law, think it sensible, besides the appropriate punishment which the criminal has deserved, at the same time to take away his motor driving licence?
My noble friend gave one relevant reason which he had already quoted: the statement of the Lord Chief Justice that people sometimes contrived to plead guilty to the charge of larceny although it is a more serious offence than taking a motor car without leave, simply because they preferred to have a heavier punishment and not have their driving licence taken away than to have a lighter punishment and also have their licence taken away. I should like to look into that a little more carefully. I do not quite know in what circumstances it would be possible for a man to decide with which offence he should be charged. I suppose this must be in cases where the police have preferred two alternative charges and the accused person can choose to plead guilty to one and not to the other.
But the other important fact is one which my noble friend himself stressed: that, unlike all his other Amendments, this is an entirely new law which has never existed before. In the case of his other proposals he is merely protesting against the removal of the penalty which exists under the 1960 or the 1956 Acts; in this case he is proposing an entirely new penalty. I think that before we can agree with that, we ought to consult particularly with the Home Office, and per-
212
haps other Departments, to see what their reaction to it is. During the Second Reading debate I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, putting forward the tentative idea that it might be a good thing if quite a lot of other offences which do not seem necessarily to be connected with road safety involved, in addition to the ordinary punishment, possible disqualification from driving. I think it is a wide question which we ought to look into a little more carefully, and I should prefer not to come to any conclusion on it on Committee stage.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: If I may refresh the noble Earl's memory, my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger did indeed bring this point up quite powerfully. The logic of her case was that if the stealing of a motor car is the preliminary to a smash-and-grab raid, by taking away his licence the person who perpetrates that crime is prevented from attempting another smash-and-grab raid. I remember that she quoted existing laws—for instance, the Deer (Scotland) Act and I think the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act—which include clauses precisely to the effect that if somebody is found guilty of this crime his motor car is confiscated. The argument is a fairly powerful one.
LORD AIREDALE: Did I rightly understand the noble Earl to say, in replying to the last Amendment, which he accepted, that a person who borrows a car or a vehicle without the owner's consent tends to drive dangerously? Does the noble Earl say, as part of his argument on this Amendment, that a person who, instead of taking without the owner's consent, steals a vehicle does not tend to drive dangerously, except in the possible instance that he mentioned, where a vehicle is stolen for resale? It seems to me a very fine distinction indeed, and I should not have thought it really held much water.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think it is a very fine distinction. What I was really trying to do was to justify acceptance of the first Amendment on the ground of road safety. The principle we are trying to keep to, if we can, is this: that if you are to get public opinion to accept the totting up provisions of the Bill you must not allow

213
disqualification to be imposed for offences which are not relevant to road safety. As I explained to your Lordships, the reason why we left out the offence of borrowing a car without leave was that it has no direct bearing on road safety; and it was in order to try to reconcile it with our principle that I said what I did, which I think is often true, that it is a tendency of the kind of young person who goes off on a jaunt, taking somebody else's car without leave, to drive carelessly, and often to abandon it and leave it in a dangerous position in the road. One may think that that is a special pleading. Perhaps it is a fine distinction, and I do not wish to press it too far. I was merely trying to make it easier for those of your Lordships who want to reconcile the Amendment which we are accepting with the principle of relevance to road safety.
LORD TEYNHAM: There is another point, is there not: that conviction for larceny of a motor car would invalidate the convicted person's insurance policy, and he would therefore be automatically disqualified?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know about that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should like to look into that, together with many other points. I have already told my noble friend that I think he has made out a case which ought to be considered.
LORD CONESFORD: My noble friend Lord Dundee has been eminently reasonable. I said in moving this Amendment that it went beyond all my previous Amendments because it did more than restore the existing law, and I think his plea that he should consult his right honourable friend the Home Secretary is certainly reasonable. My general impression is that the Home Secretary will not be against the clause, on the ground that it is likely to diminish crime, even if it is not wholly relevant to most of the provisions in the present Bill.
I am about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment for an additional reason—namely, that it has already served its main object. I put it down in order to thwart my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who was arguing against the acceptance of the last Amend-
214
ment, now accepted, that it would be illogical to accept it because you could not disqualify for the more serious offence. In order to deal with the logic of the Leader of the House I made myself impregnable by putting down the present Amendment. I find the argument of my noble friend Lord Dundee most persuasive. I hope that the Home Secretary takes the same view on the merits of this Amendment as I and the Lord Chief Justice take. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: I did not quite follow my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, but I can assure your Lordships that this Amendment is not put down to thwart anybody. Nor does it contain any point of substance. The position is that traffic directions for particular one-way working can be imposed in one of two ways: either under Section 26 of the principal Act (which is already in paragraph 14 of Part II of the Schedule) or under Section 85 of that Act, which is not in the Schedule. The purpose of this Amendment is to put it into the Schedule and so put right a small anomaly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 18, at end insert—

("24. An offence under section 5 (2) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960 (contravention of designation order) committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway.

For the words from 'to the like penalty' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'in the case of an offence committed as mentioned in paragraph 24 of the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1961, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, in any other case, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds'.")

—(Lord Chesham.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule: Part III [Amendment of certain enactments relating to offences not involving disqualification]:
LORD CONESFORD: I will not move Amendment 71A.
LORD CHESHAM: If I may say so, Amendment 71A is consequential on the

215
one that I accepted earlier on. Therefore, if I am not out of Order, I would say that it should be moved.
LORD CONESFORD: I thought you did not accept it. Is my memory wrong?
LORD CHESHAM: The one I accepted was 68B.
LORD CONESFORD: I had forgotten that my noble friend accepted it. I apologise to the Committee, and beg to move Amendment No. 71A, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 29, leave out paragraph 25.—(Lord Conesford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 71D, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 2, leave out paragraph 34.—(Lord Conesford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: I beg to move this Amendment to leave out paragraph 38. This, again, is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 27, leave out paragraph 38.—(Lord Conesford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in paragraph 43, to leave out "twenty" and insert "fifty" [pounds]. The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Swaythling, who was present until the late rising of this Committee last Thursday but is unavoidably unable to be present this evening, I beg leave to move this Amendment, which stands in his name. The Amendment seeks to amend paragraph 43 of the First Schedule which itself seeks to increase to £20 the maximum fine for the offence of failing to produce a licence.
There are three kindred offences of failing to produce documents which are dealt with by paragraphs 35, 44 and 46 of the Schedule. The documents concerned are a Northern Ireland licence, a certificate of insurance, and a test certificate. In respect of those three other documents, the maximum fine under this
216
Bill for failure to produce them is £50. Accordingly, my noble friend, seeking to bracket together all these offences of failing to produce documents under the same heading with the same maximum fine for each, put down this Amendment in order to increase from £20 to £50 the maximum fine for failing to produce a licence. That is not to say that my noble friend considered that failure to produce a licence was so grave an offence that it necessarily warranted a fine of £50. My noble friend would be perfectly content if the Government were to take the view that a £20 fine in this case would be an adequate maximum and in that way to equate the three offences with a maximum fine of £20. My noble friend's sole concern is to ensure that, whatever maximum fine is imposed, it shall be the same in the case of failing to produce any of these documents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 10, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Airedale.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that this is not a matter of principle. It is perhaps rather a difficult borderline case. We have looked at it and the Amendments in the First Schedule to the principal Act are an attempt to give effect to a decision that the penalties for road traffic offences should, so far as possible, he more rational. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has given reasons for thinking that this is not quite so rational as we think it is. But in Part HI of the First Schedule, which lists certain offences for which disqualification cannot be awarded by the courts, we have put the fines at £50 maximum for what we think are the more serious driving offences, and at £20 for the less serious offence.
May I just give one or two examples? Offences which are to incur a fine not exceeding £20 are carrying a passenger on a motor cycle in contravention of the 1960 Act; contravention of temporary prohibitions or restrictions of traffic on roads imposed under Section 36; selling reflectors not complying with regulations under Section 12 of the Road Transport Lighting Act. And £20 is also fixed as a maximum fine for breaking traffic regulations not involving moving vehicles. The offence of failing to produce a licence when so required need not necessarily be very serious, and in trying to

217
rationalise these penalties we felt that the maximum fine of £20 would be appropriate. I still feel that we were right. I am very glad to consider any further arguments and comparisons that may be brought to our notice, but I think the Committee will probably agree that there are many cases in which failure to produce a licence would not be a sufficiently serious offence to come into the category of a £50 maximum fine.
LORD TEYNHAM: I must say that I strongly object to this Amendment. I would say that £20 is an ample fine for not producing a licence.
LORD AIREDALE: The offences enumerated by the noble Earl just now were, I think, all offences connected with the actual driving of vehicles on the roads and, in that way, possibly involving danger. These offences of failing to produce documents are, in my submission, in a totally different category altogether. As I moved the Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I do not feel that I can take upon myself the responsibility of dividing the House upon it, but I would commend to the noble Earl the serious consideration of paragraph 35. I would ask him to consider whether, if £20 is the right maximum fine for failure to produce a United Kingdom licence, £50 is the right maximum fine for failing to produce a Northern Ireland licence. This is another fine distinction which this evening I am unable to follow. But, in view of everything that has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
9.32 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 43, after ("virtue") insert ("in the first place where they occur").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a small Amendment to assist the work of the police. Under Section 226 of the principal Act, it is provided, among other things, that the driver of a vehicle must in certain circumstances give the police details of the owner of the vehicle. Section 231 provides that the owner must supply the police with details of the insurance policy which
218
covers the vehicle. Section 257 defines "owner" in relation to a vehicle which is subject to a hire purchase or hiring agreement as being the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. This raises a difficulty for the police in obtaining information about the insurance of hired cars. Some drivers who hire one claim to the police, if they are asked, that the insurance details are known only to the company from whom they hired the car, and say that that company effected the insurance. The company, however, can then claim that they are not obliged to give any information about the insurance because they are not the owner as defined in the Act. There is not any common practice about effecting the insurance of hired cars. Sometimes the hiring company does it, and sometimes the driver who hires the car does it.
This Amendment seeks to avoid the difficulties which the police are having by providing that in the sections of the Act concerned the term "owner" shall include both parties to the hiring agreement. Therefore, where this difficulty crops up, the driver of a hired vehicle, where the company had effected the insurance, would be required to give details of the company from whom he had hired the vehicle. The police could then go to them, and they would be required to give the necessary details of the insurance. Of course, where the hirer himself effected the insurance the police would be able, as now, to require him to supply the necessary details. It is a tidying operation which will help the police a bit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 50, at end insert—
("Duty to give information

Section two hundred and twenty-six.

After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

'(3) In this section "owner", in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement, includes each party to the agreement.'

Section two hundred and thirty-one.

At the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—

'(3) In this section "owner", in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement, includes each party I o the agreement'.")

—(Lord Chesham.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in his name.
LORD CHESHAM: Again, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord intended to move it, so that I could, as a consequential Amendment, accept it in principle, as I did the other, so that he could then withdraw it.
LORD CONESFORD: I must again apologise. My memory was faulty. I thought I had withdrawn the earlier Amendment with a view to a different one being introduced. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the Third Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—
("Amendments of Section 86 of the principal Act
In subsection (1), after the word 'charge' there shall be added the words 'or charges'.
In subsection (1), for the word 'calculated' there shall be substituted the word 'prescribed'.
For subsection (2), there shall be substituted the following subsection:
'(2) The designation order shall prescribe the period or periods not exceeding which vehicles may be left in each parking place and shall prescribe the amount of the charge or charges to be made for those periods. The prescribed charge appropriate to each such prescribed period is hereinafter referred to as the "initial charge".'
In subsection (4), paragraph (c), the words after 'is less than' shall be omitted and the following words shall be inserted:
'the prescribed period for which the appropriate prescribed charge has been made paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not have effect, but it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the appropriate prescribed charge has not been duly paid for the vehicle.'
For subsection (5), there shall be substituted the following subsection:
'Where no such apparatus is in use, the designation order may provide that the appropriate prescribed charge shall be payable on the vehicle's being taken away from the parking place.'").—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD CHESHAM: As in the case of the main Amendment. I should like to accept the principle of this Amendment,
220
if the noble Lord will withdraw it now, subject to redrafting.
LORD CONESFORD: I now think I was completely right in saying that I did not intend to move the Amendment. But if my noble friend prefers it that way, I have much pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment which I never meant to move.
LORD CHESHAM: If I have done the wrong thing, I apologise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

  NIGHT-LETTER TELEGRAMS
  NIGHT-LETTER TELEGRAMS
  SWIMMING IN THE SERVICES
  SWIMMING IN THE SERVICES