Sitting of 24 October 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th July], That the new Standing Order relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE
95A. Where any society, association or other body, whose main objects include the protection of amenity or the conservation or study of features of natural, historic or archæological interest, petition against a bill, alleging that the amenity or such features of any locality will be adversely affected to a material extent by the provisions contained in the bill, it shall be competent to the Court of Referees, if they think fit, to admit the Petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the bill or any part thereof:
Question again proposed.
Objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what authority he now recognises as having control of Rhodesian Railways, now the Rhodesian section is split from the Zambian.
    The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): The Rhodesia Railways, set up in 1963 as a body corporate for Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia—now Zambia—jointly, has not been dissolved. While the Zambian and Southern Rhodesian sections of the Rhodesia Railways have been operated as two distinct sections since 30th June this year, the assets and liabilities of the Railways remain vested in the original body corporate, which is still jointly owned by the lawful Government of Southern Rhodesia and the Government of Zambia.
    Mr. Digby: Is not this something that ought to be talked about, if only from the point of view of pensioners? May I express the hope that the Secretary of State will prolong his stay to clear up these kind of points, as the pensions aspect is very important?
    Mr. Thomas: I know that the House will wish my right hon. Friend fair weather and godspeed in the journey which he will make today, but I can give no assurance on the other part of the question.
    Mr. Paget: From that reply, does my right hon. Friend say that the Government of Great Britain, which is the lawful Government of Rhodesia, are responsible for these pensions and debts and will pay them?
    Mr. Thomas: I said that we are responsible.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect of the sanctions campaign against Rhodesia and on the constitutional position in that country.
    Mr. George Thomas: On the basis of the réegime's own figures for 1966, the effect of "voluntary" sanctions was to reduce Rhodesian exports from £164·7 million in 1965 to £104·7 million in 1966 and imports from £119·8 million in 1965 to £84·2 million in 1966.
    No trade figures have been published by the illegal régime for the period since the mandatory sanctions were adopted on 16th December, 1966, but the United Nations' Secretary-General has stated that

    1473
    on the basis of the trade statistics provided by U.N. member States there has been a significant decline in trade between Rhodesia and many of her trading parties in most of the commodities covered by mandatory sanctions during the first months of 1967.
    The constitutional position is that Southern Rhodesia remains a part of Her Majesty's Dominions.
    Mr. Wall: May I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on the assumption of his very important office? He carries with him the good will of this side of the House. Is the Minister of State aware that sanctions will not bring down the Smith Government and that a compromise could be reached on the basis of the "Tiger" constitution if the Government would only drop their insistence on their formula for a return to legality? Is it the Secretary of State's intention to try to seek a settlement by compromise when he visits Salisbury?
    Mr. Thomas: I presume that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question proper was wishful thinking, when he said that sanctions would not succeed. There is no evidence yet. Mandatory sanctions have not been running for one year yet and it is much too early to reach a decision.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, contrary to reports, the present embargo on exports from Rhodesia covers nickel exports and nickel products?
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: When will the Government come out of cloud-cuckoo-land and realise that sanctions are not realistically working? I advise the Minister to go to France and ask people there what is happening. It is nonsense. Is he forgetting entirely what the Prime Minister told the House in the early days about the effect of sanctions?
    Mr. Thomas: It is not for me to deny the authority of the hon. Gentleman on cloud-cuckoo-land: he might know more about it than me. Sanctions are having a very serious effect on the external trade of Rhodesia, and we take no joy in that. We want a settlement on honourable terms.
    Mr. Park: Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government's policy of not granting independence to Rhodesia before majority rule remains unchanged? In the meantime, will he assure the House that, where necessary, all effective steps will be taken to increase the efficiency of sanctions?
    Mr. Thomas: We are constantly looking at the question of the effectiveness of sanctions. There is a Question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today on the question of not granting independence before majority rule.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made, or other action taken, regarding the use of Zambian and Tanzanian soil by terrorists invading Rhodesia.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): The British Government's views on terrorism and unconstitutional action are well known to all Commonwealth countries. As the House will be aware, the British Government have recently reiterated their concern to the Zambian Government.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do Her Majesty's Government accept full responsibility for the integrity of Rhodesian territory against agression from outside? If so, may we be assured that no taxpayers' money will pass from the United Kingdom to either of these two Governments while there is any question of terrorist invasions being launched from their territories?
    Mr. Thomson: I think the hon. Member is making a wrong approach to this very difficult problem. Rhodesia is in a state of rebellion against Her Majesty's Government, and I wish that we had had rather more support in the months gone by from the hon. Member in seeking to end the rebellion and restoring constitutional progress. It would not be sensible to deal with the matter in the way that the hon. Member suggests. The question of British aid to countries in Africa is of great importance in itself, and there is no reason to believe that stopping aid would have the results that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while most hon. Members regret the use of these forces which

    1475
    are bringing suffering to women and children, the responsibility lies with the present Government in not imposing effective sanctions against Rhodesia, which has left the African people no other remedy than to take the matter into their own hands?
    Mr. Thomson: No, I cannot agree with that either. Her Majesty's Government have imposed sanctions in a way that has had much greater effect than has been generally accepted. If other countries in the international community were to do as well as we have done, greater progress would be made towards restoring peaceful and constitutional progress in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Maudling: In the light of the Government's attitude to terrorism, repeated this afternoon by the Secretary of State, can the right hon. Gentleman say what reply has been received to the representations made to these two Governments? Were the replies regarded as satisfactory, and, if not, what further action will the Government take?
    Mr. Thomson: We have received a reply from the Government of Zambia to our note, and that reply, as is customary in exchanges of this kind, remains confidential. I would not express myself as satisfied with the reply, and we are continuing to keep in close touch with the Zambian Government.
    17. Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent evidence concerning trade between British firms and Rhodesia.
    Mr. George Thomas: Recent allegations by a spokesman of the illegal regime that trade between British firms and Rhodesia in the first seven months of this year amounted to £5·9 million are untrue.
    Since 2nd February, 1966, the export from Britain to Rhodesia of virtually all goods other than those for essential humanitarian purposes, and for the maintenance of the common services which Rhodesia shares with Zambia and Malawi, has been banned.
    The permitted exports in the period January to July, 1967, amounted only to £623,000.
    Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that effective means of enforcement are essential to a successful sanctions policy, and can he assure the House that there will be no hesitation on the part of the Government in bringing to justice any British business men involved in transactions of this kind?
    Mr. Thomas: I can give the House this very full assurance. Whenever hard evidence is obtained of United Kingdom citizens deliberately flouting the law, we shall take the strongest action.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese Government are claiming 100 per cent. increase in their exports to Rhodesia this year and the Swiss a 50 per cent. increase in their imports? If British firms were allowed to follow this example, would there not be rather less unemployment and misery in Scotland and Wales this winter?
    Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of sanctions being deliberately flouted by citizens with whom we can deal, I promise that we shall take action. For the rest, he had better talk to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
    Mr. David Steel: May I from this bench, albeit belatedly, offer congratulations to the Secretary of State on his appointment, saying how pleased we are that a Scot is once again in control of the Commonwealth, to which, I believe, the English have made an occasional contribution? Have the Government followed through the evidence given by the Sunday Times and the television programme "World in Action" about the breaking of sanctions?
    Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend is overwhelmed by the congratulations of a fellow Scot. As a Celt, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the article in the Sunday Times, which was informative and useful, has been studied with care, as also has the programme "World in Action". The hon. Gentleman will not want me to go into details here.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what study he has given to the extent to which officially recorded United

    1477
    States imports from Rhodesia, amounting to $4·7 million during the first seven months of this year, included goods subject to United Nations embargo; and with what results.
    Mr. George Thomas: I have studied these statistics with interest, and I am satisfied with the explanation given by the United States Government that goods subject to United Nations embargo such as tobacco and chrome which appear in the statistics were exported from Rhodesia before 16th December, 1966.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How much longer does the right hon. Gentleman think that this curious trade will continue in conformity with the embargo? In view of his statement, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to persuade the United States Government to set aside the proceeds of this trade to help to offset the dollar cost of additional tobacco imports from dollar sources into this country?
    Mr. Thomas: That is another question. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased at the agreement between the United States and ourselves.
    22. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what study he has given to the extent to which the 31 per cent. increase in exports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries to Angola during the first five months of this year included goods destined for Rhodesia; and with what results.
    Mr. George Thomas: I have studied these figures with interest but have no evidence that this increase is attributable to the use of this route for goods destined for Rhodesia. Figures for imports into Zambia through Angola recently given by the Zambian Minister of Transport, Power and Communications show that, in the six months prior to I.D.I., Zambian imports through Angola amounted to only 9,253 tons, whereas in the first five months of the present year 83,154 tons were imported by this route.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider advising British firms which have lost valuable export markets to overseas competitors to use the Angola-Zambia route into Rhodesia in the future?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not believe, and the Government do not believe, that goods are going through Angola and Zambia to Rhodesia. Zambia has re-routed her imports, and that accounts for the increase in trade.
    Mr. Whitaker: As everyone knows that sanctions are being breached through the port of Lourenço Marques, will Her Majesty's Government quarantine this port with the same naval vessels as are quarantining Beira?
    Mr. Thomas: That is a fair question, but I am in no position to give a full reply to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Bellenger: Having recently returned from those parts of Africa, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is factual, but does he understand that the House looks to the visit of his right hon. Friend to get a settlement of this problem, as, undoubtedly, sanctions are, one way or another, being broken by members of the United Nations?
    Mr. Thomas: I believe that the House and the country look to my right hon. Friend to obtain a settlement on honourable terms if possible, but he is in honour bound by the conditions which both sides of the House have accepted in the past.

    Malta
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reappraisal he has made of the economic position of Malta, in view of events in the Middle East; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what plans are being made to help the Maltese economy, especially the docks; how far such plans have proceeded; and whether he will consider negotiating a treaty with Malta on the lines of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement.
    Mr. George Thomson: The Report of the Joint Mission for Malta provides a valuable guide to the solution of Malta's economic problems. We have accepted in principle the findings of this Report and are already taking action on those recommendations which concern the British Government. I had useful talks with Dr. Borg Olivier, the

    1479
    Prime Minister of Malta, in London last week. The British and Malta Governments have agreed on the setting up of a Joint Steering Committe to follow closely and report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Joint Mission Report. I am glad to say that Lord Robens has accepted appointment as Chairman and that Professor Ross and Mr. C. M. Woodhouse have agreed to serve on it.
    As regards short-term action to meet the situation created in Malta by the Middle East war I would refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) on 17th July, 1967. We have no present intention of negotiating a treaty with Malta on the lines of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement.
    Mr. Digby: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and wish him a very useful time in his high office? I am very glad to hear about the implementation of the Malta Report, but will he not clearly recognise that the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated yet further, that for about 5,000 people in the dockyard there is very little work, and will he give urgent attention to the special problem of Malta, continuing as long as the Suez Canal is closed?
    Mr. Thomson: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his personal good wishes. I can assure him that I am giving very urgent attention to this matter. For our part we, the British Government, have made recommendations to the Malta Government on a number of matters and we are now awaiting their views. We are ready to act as soon as we can get joint agreement to move forward.
    Sir W. Teeling: May I also offer best wishes to the right hon. Gentleman on his tour? He hardly mentioned the docks in his Answer. I therefore ask what is happening about Bailey's? Are we to go on indefinitely having this matter sub judice? It is a vital issue to the prosperity and future of Malta.
    Mr. Thomson: I have had talks with the Prime Minister about this very important aspect of Malta's problems but I am afraid that the present position is still that negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and Bailey (Malta)
    1480
    Limited are in being and I cannot comment on the legal position.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: While wishing well to Malta, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make certain that any future treaty entered into will be a better bargain for the United Kingdom than the Anglo-Eire Agreement?
    Mr. Thomson: We are anxious to do the right thing by Malta, to which we have old obligations.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the constitutional future of Gibraltar.
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to call a conference to discuss the future of Gibraltar; and whom he proposes to invite.
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future constitutional position of Gibraltar in view of the recent referendum.
    Mr. George Thomson: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for the good wishes he expressed earlier? I require all the good wishes I can get in what I am about to undertake.
    In view of the result of the referendum on 10th September we will, as already announced, discuss with representatives of the people of Gibraltar appropriate constitutional changes which may be desired. I am in consultation with the Governor about procedure for setting these discussions in train. I expect that they will take place early in the new year.
    Mr. Wall: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. What will be the scope of these constitutional talks? Will they lead to a final constitutional future for the people of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Thomson: I do not think that one ever says "never" in these matters. We hope that there will be useful constitutional discussions. The last constitutional changes in Gibraltar took place only three years ago. The main change that we ourselves hope will be discussed is a

    1481
    simplification of Gibraltar's elected institutions by some form of merger between the Legislative Council and the City Council.
    Sir W. Teeling: I fully appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he does not tell us whom he proposes to invite. For instance, will the Indian community be invited, because I think that it ought to be? Why do not we have some form of round-table conference, a concept which I understand that the Secretary of State rejected yesterday, since we did this for Malta?
    Mr. Thomson: I should like to look further at the question of the Indian community being invited. The Malta Round-Table Conference was a special conference held to meet exceptional circumstances. I do not think that such a round-table conference would be appropriate in this case. What I have in mind in his case, though I have not finally decided about it, is probably a conference in Gibraltar itself, which I hope would be attended by a British Minister.
    Mr. Jeger: Does my righ hon. Friend appreciate that Gibraltar occupies a special position as the most loyal Colony we have? Will he, therefore, accord it a special relationship between now and the conference which he is calling? Does he intend visiting Gibraltar shortly?
    Mr. Thomson: I would not like to draw degrees of loyalty between various of Her Majesty's territories, but we were all deeply moved in this country by the expression of affection for this country of which the result of the referendum was an example. I am proposing that these discussions should be held very early in the new year, which is not very far ahead. My hon. Friend may be assured that between now and the constitutional discussions there will be a very intimate contact between Gibraltar and ourselves.

    Malaysia
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Malaysia during his recent visit here with regard to proposals to help Malaysia in its plans for economic development.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): The previous Commonwealth Secretary's discussions with the Tunku were concerned with the rundown of our defence forces in Malaysia. In this context he referred briefly to the financial aid which we shall give the Malaysian Government to help them adjust their economy to the new situation.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Have the Government taken the opportunity to start talks with the Government of Malaysia about the economic aid that should compensate for what I regard as the premature withdrawal and reduction of British troops? Will the Secretary of State take particular care to ensure that British overseas private investment is still encouraged rather than discouraged in Malaysia?
    Mr. Whitlock: There have been discussions recently in Malaysia on this subject, but these have been conducted through the Ministry of Overseas Development and Questions about this matter should therefore be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development.
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Malaysia during his recent visit with regard to the future rôle of British forces in Malaysia vis-à-vis Indonesia.
    Mr. George Thomson: I do not think it is helpful to speak in terms of the role of British forces against a friendly country. It was, however, made plain in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy following the talks with the Tunku last July that we shall honour our obligations under the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement and consult on the way in which we should plan to meet them.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that Britain's greatest successes in this area since the war were achieved by forces stationed on the ground in Malaysia and working with the Malaysian forces and with the people of Malaysia? Does he not recognise that to have forces that can be flown in or sent in on carriers at short notice is no substitute for having those forces on the spot in Malaysia?
    Mr. Thomson: No, Sir; I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Tunku has expressed himself as satisfied with the proposed deployment. It is proposed that by the early 1970s British forces there will consist largely of naval forces, including an amphibious element, and air forces. These highly specialised and technical forces will sensibly complement the Malaysians' own ground troops, which they can operate far more economically than we can and which they are expanding.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: For how long is it intended to maintain air support in Eastern Malaysia?
    Mr. Thomson: That question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Scotland (Emigration Officials)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is provided in Scotland by Her Majesty's Government to emigration officials from Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Whitlock: None, Sir. The migration offices set up in Edinburgh and Glasgow by the Canadian and Australian Governments are operated by officials of the respective governmental migration services without any assistance from Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that this assistance is not necessary because unfortunately the policies of the present Government and the ineffectiveness of the Secretary of State for Scotland are causing a substantial increase in emigration from Scotland?
    Mr. Whitlock: The longstanding belief of successive British Governments has been that the flow of British migrants to other parts of the Commonwealth has been of value to all concerned, and a source of strength and unity to the Commonwealth as a whole. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have been proud of the contribution that his fellow countrymen are making to the Commonwealth.

    Nigerian Students (United Kingdom)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how many Nigerian students in the United Kingdom have been reported to his Department as being placed in financial difficulties as a result of events in Nigeria; and what arrangements he has been able to make to enable them to continue their studies.
    Mr. George Thomas: Up to 9th October, 29 applications for financial assistance had been received by the area offices of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Ministry of Social Security, from Nigerian students who are in financial difficulties. About a dozen similar cases have been brought to the attention of my Department and students are being advised that they can claim supplementary benefit on condition of registering for employment. Many of these students came here to study at their own expense and it is not possible for the British Government to provide funds for them to continue their studies. I am, however, in touch with the Nigerian High Commissioner about this problem.
    Mr. Barnes: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the way in which Mr. Charles Umeh, a Biafran, has been shunted about between the British Council and the Ministry of Social Security, with very little help being given, is most disappointing? Surely Commonwealth students in this country, at a time when their own country is torn by civil war, deserve more help than they seem to be getting at the moment?
    Mr. Thomas: I will look into the case which my hon. Friend has raised. On the second point, it must be borne in mind that there are limits to what the British taxpayer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I do not want any cheers from the other side of the House. There are limits and, therefore, we must ensure that proper inquiries are made.
    Mr. Tilney: Would the Minister of State confirm that when on 20th July I asked him a similar question he said that there had been few requests. Even now there are only 29, which is a very small number. Will he see that his answer is well advertised? Also will he

    1485
    confirm that at last the Federal Government have decided to pay the pensions of British civil servants, for the payment of whose pensions the Eastern Regional Government are responsible?
    Mr. Thomas: That latter point is another matter. However, I hope that publicity will be given to the figures that I have announced.
    Mr. Wilkins: Will my hon. Friend say whether there is not another difficulty arising in connection with this matter? Is it not true to say that some of these students who find themselves in this unfortunate position are willing to work during weekends in hospitals and such places in order to obtain some money but that there is some difficulty about work permits? Will my hon. Friend look into that point?
    Mr. Thomas: The question of work permits is not one for me, but I will look into the matter to see whether I can help.

    Mr. Simbule
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Zambian Government on the suitability of Mr. Simbule continuing as High Commissioner in London.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government intend to take with regard to the continued public criticisms of Her Majesty's Government by Mr. Alinan Simbule, the High Commissioner for Zambia.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) on 23rd October.
    Mr. Biffen: Is it not clear from that reply that 10 weeks have elapsed since Mr. Simbule again made derogatory remarks about the British Government in London and in Nairobi? Is not the Government's attitude not so much one of tolerance but of craven indulgence, and is it not time that Mr. Simbule was sent packing?
    Mr. Thomson: No, I do not think so. The fact is that Mr. Simbule has not been in London since the remarks to
    1486
    which the hon. Member is referring were made, which is two and a half months ago, except when in transit to his present post in New York. I think it is better to leave this matter to be resolved through the normal diplomatic channels.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not a fact that 10 weeks have elapsed since the Zambian Government were asked for an explanation of Mr. Simbule's latest remarks? How long do the Government propose to wait for a reply?
    Mr. Thomson: I think it is better to deal with this matter in the way in which it is being dealt with, through normal diplomatic channels.
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the Minister think of another previous example of any High Commissioner or ambassador accredited here or anywhere else who has been allowed to remain in his post after expressing the kind of view and using the kind of language that Mr. Simbule has used about the Government to which he is accredited?
    Mr. Thomson: I appreciate the feeling on this matter, which is not confined to one side of this House or to one party, but I remind the hon. Member that Mr. Simbule has not been in his post since he left on 12th August. I think it would be in the best interests of relations between Zambia and Britain, which are of great importance, that we should deal with this matter in the way in which I am suggesting.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to protect British personnel and investments in Nigeria, in view of the present dispute between Biafra and the Nigerian Federal authorities.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation between the Federal Government and Biafra in Nigeria as it affects British interests.
    Mr. George Thomson: We have had to advise United Kingdom nationals, for their own safety, to leave those parts of Nigeria which have been the scene of

    1487
    fighting. Inevitably some British property has been at risk. We have kept in close touch with the Nigerian authorities in these matters.
    Mr. Biffen: Is it not clear that the vacillation of Her Majesty's Government has resulted in our having the worst of all worlds in that we are repudiated by the Biafrans and the Federal authorities? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is fully satisfied that the considerable British investments particularly in Biafra are not being put unnecessarily at risk?
    Mr. Thomson: The hon. Member is quite wrong in the assumption that he makes in the first part of that supplementary question. We have not had the worst of both worlds. We recognise the Federal military Government of Nigeria and we have operated on that basis. I have to tell the hon. Member that the reports that I have had from the Mid-West are that damage to British property there has not been extensive, but it is too early yet to make any statement about what is happening to British property in Eastern Nigeria.
    Mrs. Butler: As the safety of British nationals as well as the future of the country depend upon bringing the conflict to an end quickly, could my right hon. Friend say whether he has made any attempts to obtain mediation between the two sides, particularly from somebody who is trusted by the Biafrans who are dominated by their fear of a repetition of the massacre and reprisals last year?
    Mr. Thomson: There are other Questions on this subject and I shall, therefore, confine myself to saying that Her Majesty's Government have always been ready to do anything they can to help to end the war and start talks.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what help he has offered to Nigeria towards bringing the civil war there to an end.
    Mr. George Thomson: We are ready to consider any proposal which the Nigerians make for our help in promoting peace talks or in any other way. I have stated this publicly outside this House as well as in private exchanges with the Federal Government.
    Mr. Tilney: With so many friends of Britain on both sides of this insane civil war, which is bringing great carnage and loss to all in Nigeria and to great British interests there, will the Secretary of State back up any mediation on the part of Heads of African States and also offer troops to keep the ring should there be a referendum on the frontiers of some of the new 12 States?
    Mr. Thomson: As one among many in this country who is an old friend of Nigeria, I warmly endorse the first words uttered by the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that, if there were any suggestion of effective help which we could give, we should certainly respond to it. We have warmly welcomed the initiative of the O.A.U. I am sorry that this has been delayed, but I understand that it is now likely to take place in the early part of November.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) what economic consultations he is having with the Pakistan Government during its preparation of the third five-year plan in order that it can have a realistic appraisal of its trade with Great Britain over that period should Great Britain join the Common Market;
    (2) what reply has been sent to the High Commissioner for Pakistan to the aide-memoire he submitted on the effect of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market; and what is his estimate of the amount of compensation which would be required in accordance with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade principle concerning the discontinuance of preferences.
    Mr. Whitlock: Consultations have taken place with the Government of Pakistan about the British application for membership of the E.E.C., but they were of a confidential nature and I do not think it would be right to disclose what was said. As regards compensation for loss of preferences, I am advised that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade confers no rights in this respect.
    Mr. Pavitt: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post on the Front Bench. Is he

    1489
    aware that if we join the Common Market, one-third of Pakistan's trade with us will go to the wall by 1970, and it will be no consolation if we give further technical assistance while at the same time destroying that country's economy? Further, is he aware that the only relief in tariffs given by the Common Market so far is on tea, which Pakistan does not export and which Europe does not drink?
    Mr. Whitlock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remarks. The Pakistan five-year plan to which he refers covers the period 1965–70, and it is most unlikely that British entry into the E.E.C. would have any significant effect on Pakistan's trade during that period. My hon. Friend will know that, in the previous negotiations, agreement was reached that, after British entry into the enlarged Community, the Community would declare its willingness to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement with Pakistan. This is one of the provisional agreements which we hope it will be possible to revive.
    Mr. Clark HutchisonDoes not the Minister realise that we are not going into the Common Market?
    Mr. Whitlock: That is a personal expression of opinion.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Coeasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Hong Kong in the light of Lord Shepherd's visit there.
    Mr. George Thomson: My noble Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs arrived back earlier this afternoon from his visit to Hong Kong.
    I know the House will wish to record its admiration for the splendid behaviour of the people of Hong Kong who have refused to be intimated by acts of violence. Although these have been committed by a very small group of troublemakers, I regret to say that since the disturbances began nearly six months ago until the 11th October, they have resulted in 40 deaths and 617 people injured. The House will wish me to express our sympathy to those who have suffered personal losses.
    1490
    The Hong Kong police have continued to carry out their onerous and dangerous duties with the most praiseworthy determination and restraint, and with the full support of the overwhelming majority of the population. Despite terrorism, border incidents and sporadic bomb outrages, the colony continues its normal, energetic life. Economically Hong Kong continues to prosper because of the determination, energy and industry of her people. Exports and tourists have increased by 16 per cent. and 12 per cent. over the corresponding figures for 1966.
    Mr. Royle: Is the Minister aware that the House welcomes his statement and shares his admiration for the staunch and restrained action which both the Hong Kong Government and the police force have taken in the Colony? What action are Her Majesty's Government taking to obtain the immediate release of those Hong Kong policemen, including a police inspector, who have been kidnapped and taken across the border into Red China? Can the Minister give a firm assurances that the Government will continue to give support both here and in the Colony to the actions of the Hong Kong Government during the weeks ahead?
    Mr. Thomson: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are in discussion at the moment with the Chinese People's Republic authorities about the senior police inspector and the other policemen who have been abducted. I did not mention that in my main statement, although it is very much in my mind, because the discussions are at a delicate stage and I think that in the best interests of getting those people back the less said at the moment the better.
    Mr. Coe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give great satisfaction to the people of Hong Kong, both for the forthright assertion of British responsibility for the Colony and for correcting some unfortunate and untrue impressions given in the Press and by broadcasting in this country of a Colony whose whole life was disrupted by bomb-throwers? Is he also satisfied that the recent reforms which have been gained as a result of the Minister of State's visit can be followed up by further reforms over a wide field?
    Mr. Thomson: My noble Friend has just arrived back today. I have had a

    1491
    brief meeting with him, but he will make a full report and we shall seek to follow up his recommendations.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with the Governor of Hong Kong during His Excellency's recent visit.
    Mr. George Thomson: My talks with the Governor covered a wide range of subjects since I was anxious to take advantage of his presence here to familiarise myself with the various Hong Kong problems. Some of these have since been pursued by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs during his visit to the Colony from which he returns today.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in its 1956 Annual Report Hong Kong was promised a new society? In view of the splendid tribute which he has just paid to the people of Hong Kong, is it not time that they had the chance of helping to create that new society by means of the franchise?
    Mr. Thomson: I think that in the economic sense the people of Hong Kong have been showing an example to the rest of the world by creating a new society for themselves, which is the best way to tackle the matter. My hon. Friend knows very well from his long and intimate connection with Hong Kong that it has already been stated in the House on several occasions that because of Hong Kong's special position constitutional development towards self-government is not possible, and I have nothing further to add to that.

    Brunei
    Mr. Peelasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, since the abdication of the last Sultan of Brunei, any changes are proposed in the treaty with that State.
    Mr. George Thomson: No such proposals have been made.

    PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will convene a conference of trade union leaders and the appro-
    1492
    priate Ministers to discuss the future of the Government's incomes policy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The prices and incomes policy now in force has been worked out with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, and the Government are remaining in close touch with both bodies. I see no need for a special conference.
    Mr. Marten: Could the Prime Minister, as overlord of an essentially Socialist economic policy, tell the House whether he actually has evidence that the Communist Party is plotting to make a winter of disruption in this country?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made his statement last week with my full support, and he would not have said what he did without abundant evidence to justify it.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a number of companies which appear to be evading the Government's restrictions and severe restraint in that they are increasing by rather large amounts dividends which are already high? If I give him one illustration, of a 65 per cent. dividend being raised to 75 per cent., will he have it investigated?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in close touch with this, but my hon. Friend will be aware that over the period about which we have been talking the number of reductions in profits and dividends has exceeded the number of increases.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in Great Britain's negotiations to join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will now state the position with regard to the British application to join the European Economic Community.
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister what communications he

    1493
    has had with the President of France during the Recess on the subject of the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community; and what progress has been made with the United Kingdom's application.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made on negotiations for British entry to the Common Market.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his recent European continental talks and communications directed to Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: Since I last reported to the House, the European Commission has prepared its Opinion on Britain's application, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Treaty of Rome. This document, which concluded that negotiations should be opened, is now being discussed at the two-day meeting of the E.E.C. Council of Ministers at Luxembourg. When that meeting is over my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement to the House. In advance of that statement, and in view of reports which have appeared about the first day's transactions in Luxembourg, I should perhaps make this clear. Our application is in and remains in. We shall not be deterred by day-to-day developments or possible disappointments. We reject some of the reported statements as ill-informed, and conclusions said to be drawn from them as unwarranted and inadmissible. We are prepared to let the facts talk. Therefore I repeat that we are ready to enter into negotiations now.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that our application is based upon strength and not weakness by setting a time limit of months for the consideration of our application, and, if nothing has happened by then, making it clear that we shall look elsewhere for economic and technological co-operation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the very robust attitude of the large majority of the Six makes clear their attitude to our application. I do not feel that it would serve British national purposes best by fixing any time limit. I have
    1494
    said that our application is in and remains in. In one sense it might be said that time is on our side, but I do not believe that time is on the side of those in Europe and Britain who want to see a much stronger technologically-based Europe with greater power to influence world events.
    Mr. Winnick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that our chances of gaining entry to the Common Market at this stage are very slim, and that it is humiliating for the country if we proceed with our application if there are such strong and unreasonable objections from some of the countries in the Community?
    The Prime Minister: I think that for objections to be strong and unreasonable and seen to be such does not in any sense involve any humiliation for this country. I have already said what I and the Government feel about certain statements reported as having been made yesterday.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Now it is clear that our application will fail, what plan has the Prime Minister for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member may possibly have drawn that conclusion from what has happened. I do not. I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he awaits the statement which my right hon. Friend will make when we have had a full report of what happened in Luxembourg.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister feel that the present visit of a distinguished German statesman will help Britain's application to join the Common Market and, if so, in what way?
    The Prime Minister: The full support of the German Government for Britain's entry has never been in doubt. I have not yet seen any report of what has been said at Luxembourg today on behalf of the German Government, but I have no doubt at all that they will take every means open to them to secure a successful outcome to the initiative that we have taken.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether his right hon. Friend can make his statement before foreign affairs are debated on the Queen's Speech?
    The Prime Minister: It is the intention that he should make a statement this week, but, as I have said, we must wait until we have a full report from Luxembourg. I think that it will probably be made on Thursday, but certainly before Prorogation.
    Mr. Thorpe: In view of the fact that the strongest reservations by the Commission, and at any rate by France, have been in regard to sterling, to its valuation and to its reserve rôle, and in view of the very helpful speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Rio, will the Government consider taking a fresh initiative with regard to the suggestion for a European reserve currency?
    The Prime Minister: No initiative is called for. These matters can be discussed in negotiations. What my right hon. Friend said in Rio and what he said in an interview in Le Monde is what he has said in the House when we have debated these matters and what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I stated in Paris. Since the right hon. Gentleman has, I think, incorrectly, referred to the valuation of sterling, I would just make it clear that when my right hon. Friend and I were in Paris the French Prime Minister went to great lengths to make clear his confidence in the valuation of sterling.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why does my right hon. Friend speak about ill-informed statements? What are these ill-informed statements? When he speaks about facts which have not been disclosed, have we not been told over and over again that all the facts have been disclosed to the House? Will he now disclose the facts which hitherto have not been disclosed?
    The Prime Minister: The facts have been fully disclosed to the House because, so far as Britain's economic position is concerned, we have debated it very fully and it has been dealt with many times at Question Time. When I referred to the facts, I meant the situation that at least one speech made yesterday did not seem to be based on those facts despite the efforts of my right hon. Friend and me in Paris to make the facts known to our hosts.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for changes in the number, scope, and organisation of Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I keep this matter under review and will inform the House when I have any changes to propose.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not the Prime Minister agree that there are too many Government Departments? Is there not a need to regroup into a smaller number of major Departments, such as welfare, production and distribution, each with a senior Minister in the Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: These matters have been debated as long as Governments have existed. I will, of course, bear my hon. Friend's proposals in mind. I cannot see, however, that the best interests of British industry and trade would be served if the Board of Trade were divided into two Departments, one for production and the other for distribution.
    Mr. Costain: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the answer to a Question yesterday by the Minister of Public Building and Works stating that 6 million additional feet of office accommodation have been taken by Government Departments since 1964? Is that not one of the reasons why the housing programme has fallen behind?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the first place, the housing programme is not behind. I have noticed that, with the record figure of housing starts and the number of houses under construction, far fewer Questions have been put to me about housing. The office space is required for policies approved by the House, including the improvements in our social security provisions and including the investment grants scheme, for example, needed to bring work to the development areas.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister whether, since the return of Lord Alport from Rhodesia, the Government are still committed to a solution of the Rhodesian

    1497
    problem on the basis of Nibmar and not on the basis of the six principles.
    The Prime Minister: There has been no change in our position on this matter since Lord Alport's return from Rhodesia.
    Mr. Judd: Does the Prime Minister agree that there can be no confidence in securing full rights for the people of Rhodesia as a whole short of Nibmar? Does he realise that he will have the maximum support, from this side of the House at least, in any action necessary to achieve that objective?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have said on previous occasions about the declaration made by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference last year. But I must repeat, as I did last time we discussed these matters in the House—because a lie has been carefully fostered on the question in Rhodesia—that we have made it clear many, many times in the House and in Rhodesia that there can be no question of early majority rule. When one looks at the state of African national leadership in Rhodesia one finds that very much emphasised. How much that is the fault of the Europeans there is a matter for debate.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position on Rhodesia.
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister if he will state what progress he has made with Mr. Ian Smith in reaching a settlement of the issue of independence for Rhodesia.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the most recent discussions between the Government and the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's relations with Rhodesia.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the progress of the investigatory talks with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement
    1498
    about the communications which have passed between the British Government and the illegal regime in Rhodesia during the Summer Adjournment.
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about ending the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister: As foreshadowed in my statement of 25th July, exchanges through the Governor have taken place during the Recess. I have, however, no information to give the House at the present time, though I am bound to say that the tenor of the exchanges so far has not been encouraging.
    The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary will be leaving today to visit African Commonwealth countries to discuss matters of common interest with their leaders. As the House will also know, in the course of his journey my right hon. Friend will be visiting Rhodesia at the invitation of the Governor, and while in Salisbury he will be ready on the recommendation of the Governor and under the Governor's aegis to see other Rhodesians, including Mr. Smith.
    A full report will, of course, be made to the House after my right hon. Friend's return.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Prime Minister make some comment on the operations of South African troops and armed forces in Rhodesia? Does the Prime Minister not agree that it would have been better and more honest if the Leader of the Opposition at Brighton had educated his own party delegates to the moral issues involved in this dispute?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, Her Majesty's Government have issued a statement and I will see that it is made available in the Library and to my hon. Friend. On the second point, I very much applaud the fact that in that speech, which I have read, the Leader of the Opposition fully supported the need for

    1499
    a return to legality and constitutional law and once again, and I think very rightly, reiterated the six principles, which were, of course, the policy of the previous Government, as well as being the policy of this Government. I think that that was entirely helpful. The only criticism I make is that he went on fostering the misunderstanding, the misrepresentation, that the "Tiger" talks foundered on a demand by us for direct rule. There was no such demand, and Mr. Smith knew it.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions put to a Minister ought to be about a matter in which there is Ministerial responsibility.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would it not be wise to reach a settlement and to get rid of sanctions in weeks, not months?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It was offered in days last December to Mr. Smith. On that occasion he could have gone off the ship as Prime Minister designate—legal, constitutional, Prime Minister designate—and the unwinding of sanctions would have begun immediately. Unfortunately, he or a majority of his Cabinet rejected that very fair and just offer which was made.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since in Ghana the Constitutional Commission is giving serious consideration to a qualified franchise as more suitable to African conditions than one man, one vote, will the Prime Minister not be dogmatic about Nibmar but concentrate on trying to reach a just solution and press forward to the new legality described by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at Brighton?
    The Prime Minister: The "Tiger" constitution involved a highly qualified franchise. It would have involved qualification for that franchise over a period of very many years before we came anywhere near one man, one vote. The best estimate made at that time was about ten to twelve years. I should not have thought that that was too long a period in the circumstances. What we cannot accept—and I do not think that the previous Government would accept it either—is deliberate action on the part of the European minority to hold back progress towards the achievement of the franchise. Our offer of a great educational pro-
    1500
    gramme, repeating the offer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was flatly rejected on the ground that it would have given too many Africans the vote.
    Mr. Hamilton: How long will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stay in Salisbury? Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister think that it is humanly possible to reach an agreement, based on the six principles, which would be satisfactory to this House and to our Commonwealth friends?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend plans at present to stay in Salisbury for two days, but of course, if necessary, he is prepared to stay longer. But he would require very much more evidence than has been forthcoming that there is willingness to talk about an honourable settlement in Salisbury. Certainly, no settlement would be reached by Her Majesty's Government that was not in any sense fully honourable and acceptable to this House.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that operations by foreign troops and police in Rhodesia create an entirely new situation? What steps are being taken to deal with this?
    The Prime Minister: I have already answered one Question on this subject today. South African police, not troops, were involved. We have rejected their right to intervene in British territory. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met the South African Foreign Minister, he limited their claim to be there to dealing with known South African terrorists heading for South Africa. However, we regard the intervention of these police as wrong and have said so.
    Mr. Whitaker: What action has my right hon. Friend in view to concentrate Mr. Smith's mind by further action, such as, for example, quarantining the port of Lourenco Marques?
    The Prime Minister: We have looked at the question of making sanctions more effective, but we should not overlook the deep effect that they are already having on the Rhodesian economy. One of the biggest problems is the sheer evasion of the oil sanctions through Lourenco Marques, and I have no doubt that this will be one of the questions that my right

    1501
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will be discussing with Heads of Government during his visit.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in Rhodesia and elsewhere find it difficult to understand our insistence on Nibmar when, in South Arabia, the Government are offering the cloak of legality to bands of terrorists not elected by anyone?
    The Prime Minister: That takes the Question rather wider than Rhodesia. I am aware that many people, both European and African, in Rhodesia find it difficult to understand what this House has decided, but this is mainly because of the tight censorship of any statement of our position, and, of course, the police control of the Rhodesian television and radio. Because of this, the Rhodesian regime is able to foster total misrepresentations, such as those about the "Tiger" talks last year and about our insistence on a very long period before majority rule can he achieved not by clock time but by achievement.
    Mr. Sandys: Not wishing to intervene in the controversial exchanges which are taking place [Laughter.]—I do not think that this is the moment to do so—may I simply ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will carry with him the good wishes of almost the whole country for the success of his talks in Salisbury?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I am sure that my right hon. Friend will carry those good wishes with him, and in the same non-controversial spirit I should add that I know he will carry the good wishes of all in this House in standing firm for the principles which the right hon. Member for Streatham himself laid down when he held office.
    Sir Dingle Foot: While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Salisbury, will he seek an opportunity to meet those African leaders who are now in detention and who represent many more Rhodesians than does Mr. Smith?
    The Prime Minister: In these matters my right hon. Friend will no doubt be
    1502
    guided by the Governor, although it will be recalled that when his predecessor, Lord Aylestone, was there on two occasions last autumn repeated and formal requests by him to see the African Nationalist leaders were completely rejected by the régime. [HON. MEMBERS: "For no reason."] Mr. Smith had good reason. He was prepared to allow Lord Aylestone to meet them but Mr. LardnerBurke would not let him.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the Prime Minister aware that independent African Commonwealth countries both north and south of the Zambesi would now be prepared to consider an end to sanctions and discussion of independence?
    The Prime Minister: This matter will be discussed by my right hon. Friend with the leaders of those Commonwealth countries. But I know of no Commonwealth country which wants to sell out to an illegal action or to agree to a betrayal of the principles approved by successive Governments in this country and by this House. They would like to see, as we want to see and have offered, an ending of sanctions, but only on the basis of constitutional legality and the principles that this House has laid down.
    Mr. Park: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that there was no early prospect of majority rule. Will he confirm that this must also imply that there is no early prospect of independence for Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: I have already stated, in relation to the Nibmar reference, as it is called, that we stand by what has been said previously in this House—that we should require a very big change in circumstances to justify our going back to other Commonwealth countries on that question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that Questions put down late in the day would not be answered at Question Time unless you decided that you could call other Questions. You have, however, called Question No. 31, which, clearly, was put down rather late, rather than other Questions.

1503
May I ask whether you have now changed your Ruling?
Mr. Speaker: I regret that I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I did not call Question No. 31.
Mr. Barnett: But you did, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled previously, however, that when Questions were put down late in the day you would not give them priority. I wonder whether you have changed your Ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I am still in the dark. I simply follow the order of Questions on the Order Paper. Questions received at the Table Office take their place chronologically.
Mr. Barnett: Perhaps I can make my point of order clear, Mr. Speaker. You have pointed out previously that when Questions were answered together, if Questions were put down rather late you would not necessarily give priority to them and would call other Questions even though they had not been put down rather late. I wondered whether you had changed your Ruling.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I understand the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). When a large number of Questions have been put down I have tried, as far as possible, to confine my Answer to those which might normally be expected to be reached on the Order Paper. I believe that this was the guidance you gave to the House some time ago.
But in the special circumstances of the House coming back after a long Recess, I thought it would be desirable to answer more Questions because they had accumulated over a period of time. In general, however, my colleagues and I would, of course, intend to follow the general guidance that you have given.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise. I understand the point now. There are two Questions numbered 31 on the Order Paper. I take it that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) is referring to Question No. 31 to the Prime Minister. I did not feel that it was within my previous Ruling that I should apply to it the rule I normally apply to
1504
Questions numbered 60, or 65 or 70 on the Order Paper.
However, there is some validity in the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. When we do have a number of late Questions within the Prime Minister's limited number of Questions something like the Ruling I have given before ought to apply. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I am sorry that I was not seized of the point at first, but there were two Questions numbered 31.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to inquire the reason for the disallowance of the Private Notice Question which I sought—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is utterly out of order.

SECURITY (MISS KEENAN)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
In accordance with the statement on references to the Security Commission which I made to the House on 10th May, 1965, and after informing the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I asked the Security Commission on 10th June to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which Miss Helen Mary Keenan had been charged with an offence under the Official Secrets Act and upon any related failure of departmental security arrangements or neglect of duty; and in the light of their investigation to advise whether any change in the security arrangements is necessary or desirable.
On 25th July Miss Keenan was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of offences under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
On 23rd June, the Security Commission reported to me that there had been no failure of departmental security procedures or neglect of duty. This Report has not been published earlier because there was a possibility of appeal proceedings. Copies of the Report, from which certain details have been omitted in the interest of national security with the agreement of the Security Commission, will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.

1505
In accordance with the normal practice, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has seen the full Report and has agreed with the deletions made in the published version.
The Security Commission has made certain suggestions on matters of detail which the Government accept and are putting into effect. But it concludes that only search measures offer any real prospect of providing a better safeguard for documents. A similar suggestion was made by the Security Commission in its Report of June, 1965, and it was then decided not to introduce such searches for the reasons which I explained in my statement of 25th January, 1966.
We have re-examined this matter and have concluded that the decision not to introduce searches should be maintained.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making that statement in the usual way. As the Security Commission has now come to the conclusion, after considering the Government's views, that a search in some form or other ought to be instituted, does this not now give very great weight to the views which the Security Commission held and, knowing the disadvantages that it has pointed out, ought not the Government to reconsider the whole question?
The Prime Minister: As I have just said, we reconsidered the matter in the light of this second recommendation about searches. As always—and I remember a predecessor of mine making the point several times—one has to hold the balance somewhere in a democracy between security and reasonable personal freedom in these matters. I think that a compulsory search of staffs leaving offices will be regarded by many of us as an excessive intrusion, particularly since there is good reason to think, in the rare case of the individual who was prepared to try and get away with it, that it would not be completely effective.
Dr. Summerskill: Miss Keenan is my constituent and known to me personally. Would not the Prime Minister agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that a young, impressionable and inexperienced girl, new to London, should not have been given access to this information in the first place?
The Prime Minister: With the wisdom of hindsight I think that there are one or two further lessons to be drawn from this case. I do not think that it is a question of newness to London which is the issue here, though the loneliness of some office staffs who come to London from the provinces creates special social problems which this case has highlighted.
Regarding her employment in the Cabinet Office, which automatically means access to secret information, at this time we are looking into the whole question of recruitment for that kind of employment.
Mr. Marten: Was Miss Keenan positively vetted?
The Prime Minister: I would like to check on that. I did have the answer in July, but I have not checked since. As far as I recall, she had gone through most of the stages, but it had not been completed. I think that that was the position. On the evidence available to me, I feel that what went wrong here was not any security clearance, because I do not think that any security vetting could have shown the vulnerability which resulted from the association with the individual concerned.
Mr. Thorpe: I have two questions. First, is it not a fact that when Miss Keenan resigned eight months after taking up her employment the vetting procedures had not been completed and the Commission held that this was normal? If that is so, is not this some case for speeding up the vetting procedures and not having them spread over eight months?
Secondly, since Miss Keenan was only 20 years of age, can we assume that she had not had any previous experience of working in Government Department? In any event, should not somebody who goes into the Cabinet Office have given loyal service first in slightly less vulnerable branches of the Service?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very sound point. The need to speed up procedures has been emphasised and it is one of the lessons of this case.
Recruitment now to the sensitive branches at No. 10 is on the basis of

1507
inviting applications from other Departments where something is known and where there has been experience in sensitive work and we are considering how far that can be applied to other areas where there is this sensitive kind of work rather than by direct recruitment.
Captain W. Elliot: Will the Prime Minister give further thought to this question of search? There are certain areas where searches are carried out on all individuals—for example, at the Customs—but this is a much more important place. If there was a threat of search—andit need not be carried out often—surely it would have a deterrent effect.
The Prime Minister: This is an extremely difficult issue to decide. It was carefully considered on the first occasion when the Security Commission made the recommendation and again on the second occasion. It is very difficult and I feel that not to accept the recommendation probably holds the right balance between personal freedom and the right to some degree of privacy and the security considerations.
I am rather moved towards that view by the fact that search, or threat of search, would not be a complete deterrent or completely effective in the kind of circumstances one might expect on very rare occasions.

SECURITY (MISS KEENAN)

  NEW MEMBERS
  The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made the Affirmation required by law:
  David William Stennis Stuart Lane Esquire, for Cambridge.
  Frederick John Silvester, Esquire, for Walthamstow, West.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.49 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 26th June last this House concurred with the Lords in their Resolution that it was desirable that, in the present Session, all Bills to consolidate enactments with Amendments to give effect to recommendations made by the Law Commissions, together with any report containing such recommendations, be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
  The present Bill is the first outcome of this procedure, designed to achieve consolidation with such Amendments as appear to the Law Commission to be required for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation. It is right that I should draw the attention of the House to that fact.
  The Law Commission, in the preparation of the Bill, found that to produce a satisfactory consolidation it desired to recommend a number of Amendments, and it reported accordingly. The Amendments recommended have been considered and agreed to by the Joint Committee, which reported that the Amendments proposed to be made to the existing law contained in the Bill gave effect to the recommendations of the Commissions which it approved.
  In broad terms, the Acts which are consolidated in the Bill deal with methods for establishing and improving, maintaining and regulating fisheries for shellfish and for prohibiting or restricting the taking of crabs and lobsters. There are provisions also designed to achieve the elimination or the prevention of the spread of disease and pests affecting shellfish.
  One of the matters revealed by a study of the laws to be consolidated was the degree of discrepancy between the fines for similar offences under different Acts. For taking spawning crab maximum fines

  1509
  ranged from £2 for a first offence to £10 for a second or subsequent offence. For landing lobster carrying spawn the maximum fines were £100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.
  The Law Commission recommended assimilation of these penalties, reporting without hesitation that existing discrepancies between fines for similar offences were an accidental anomaly. But it reported that it did not think that Parliament would look to the Commissions for advice on the proper level of fines. The maximum penalties in Clause 17, namely, £25 for a first offence and £50 for a subsequent offence are those which the Home Office after consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recommended.
  With those few observations and bearing in mind that this is the first application of the procedure to which I referred earlier, I express the hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: May I, first, from this side of the House, welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman in his new office and wish him well personally? From our association in other spheres I feel that I have almost a vested interest, which I ought to declare, in his appointment.
  In this Second Reading debate we are embarking upon a new procedure, and perhaps the House will not begrudge a little time looking at that new procedure and how it affects our discussions. It is a procedure which arises, as the Solicitor-General has said, out of a Resolution passed on 26th June when the House agreed that it was desirable in the present Session that all Bills to consolidate any enactments with Amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions should be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. As a result, in this Bill we are embodying not only consolidation but recommendations from the Law Commission.
  We therefore have an entirely new wording for the Long Title of the Bill:
  "An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to shellfish fisheries and shellfish,
  1510
  with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission."
  The Bill deals with a rather extensive area of the law—orders for fisheries, the grants of several fisheries, the regulation of fisheries and the protection of fisheries, the prohibiting of the importation of shellfish and the close season for oysters. Quite a variety of subjects is dealt with. When consolidation of the subject was studied, it was found impossible to bring forward a reasonable consolidation Bill without introducing new law, new law as recommended by the Law Commission.
  This is a fourth category of consolidation Bills. Previously, we have known the pure consolidation Bill, what one knows as the "scissors and paste" type. Secondly, we have known consolidation with corrections and minor improvements as permitted by the 1949 legislation. We have known consolidation Bills with Amendments which are wide open to debate and Amendment in the House. Now we have a modification of that third category—consolidation with special Amendments recommended by the Law Commission.
  In the report of the Joint Committee on this Consolidation Bill it is said that the Joint Committee considered the Bill, together with the report of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission on the consideration of certain enactments relating to shellfisheries and shellfish. It was of the opinion that the recommendations of the Law Commissions were for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law and the Committee approved the recommendations and, except for one, made no further comments. I will return to that a little later.
  The recommendations are included in Command Paper 3267, the Report from the Law Commissions, and although the Solicitor-General dealt with only one recommendation, there were in fact 10 which have been embodied in the Bill, each of which is new law. As I understand the position, on Second Reading and later in Committee and on Report we are entitled to discuss those recommendations and how far they have been embodied in the Bill. It is true that quite a number of them are matters of small moment.

  1511
  The first recommendation, for example, was a tidying-up of the orders granting several fisheries and regulating fisheries. It was recommended that such orders could combine an order for a several fishery and the regulation of a fishery. No one could object to that. The second recommendation was of much the same type. Under existing law the rights of a person granted a fishery by order are given to someone called a "grantee" and that leads one to believe that those rights would be given only to the original grantee. The Law Commission recommended that that should be tidied up and should therefore include assignees of the original grantee.
  The third recommendation is of far greater importance and relates to the penalties upon a person who refuses to answer inquiries from a seafishery officer. As the law stands, a person who obstructs an inspector or other person in the exercise of any power or right conferred by the provisions to which the particular Section in the 1962 Act apply would be guilty of an offence.
  The Law Commission apprehended that a person who refused to answer inquiries by an inspector might not be guilty of any offence and therefore introduced a penalty for a person refusing to answer questions put by an inspector. It appears in Clause 5 (7) in these words:
  "Any person who obstructs an inspector or other person in the exercise of any power or right conferred by this section,"
  and now the new words:
  "or who refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to provide any information reasonably required by an inspector or other person in the exercise of any such power or right, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50."
  Where we have introduced such penalties in other legislation, such as the recent Companies Bill which went through the House, protection has been given to the privilege between a legal adviser and his client. That perhaps ought to be considered in introducing this new aspect of the law in Clause 5(7). Perhaps it is a Committee point, but it is a serious matter to impose a penalty on someone merely for refusing to answer questions by an inspector when there is no qualifica-
  1512
  tion of that. He may wish to refuse because by his answers he might incriminate himself, but he cannot do so without being guilty under this subsection. I think that this needs further consideration.
  I go on with the recommendations of the Law Commission. There is a minor recommendation, the fourth, that boroughs be included with counties under the law relating to the trial of offences. Only counties were mentioned in the old law. There is the rather amusing recommendation No. 5, where the Law Commission found that it was an offence to import shellfish by vessel, but, therefore, not by aircraft or hovercraft. So we have the law modernised by the introduction of aircraft and hovercraft as being vehicles in which one is forbidden to import shellfish without authority.
  Recommendation No. 6 makes an alteration in the close season for oysters. I was always under the impression that one could safely say that if there were not an "r" in the month it was a close season for oysters, but apparently that does not work. There was a close season for deep sea oysters and one for other oysters. Now it will all be one term.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: A rule of thumb?
  Mr. Page: I do not know about a rule of thumb. I always open my oysters with something more powerful than my thumb.
  Recommendation No. 7 is the important one to which the Solicitor-General referred. It deals with the provisions relating to the catching or selling, or even having possession, of crabs in spawn and lobsters in spawn. The Law Commission drew attention to the extraordinary position that the catching and selling of a crab in spawn might result in a fine of £2, whereas the catching and selling of a lobster in spawn might result in a penalty of £100 for the first offence and £200 for the second offence.
  The Commission recommended that this should be brought in line and left it to Parliament to decide what the penalty should be. The Joint Committee thought that this was a matter which should be left to the House to decide. As a result, in another place an Amendment has been put in the Bill and we now have in the Bill penalties for each of these offences of

  1513
  £25 for the first offence and £50 for the second.
  The eighth recommendation was that as the definition of shellfish bed did not cover a natural shellfish bed but only those which are man-made, the definition should cover both. The ninth recommendation was that the legislation should be applied to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, with alterations if necessary by Order in Council. I am a little puzzled why the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands cannot legislate for themselves in relation to shellfish, but I suppose there is a precedent for this.
  The tenth recommendation says that where an order is made under a certain part of the Act of 1868, the order had to be published, actualy published and distributed by the person who had the benefit of the order. That, apparently, had not been done for a long time and the Law Commission recommended that the person having the benefit of the order should be merely required to publish notice of it. I wonder whether that is sufficent.
  It might be advisable to have this requirement to publish the notice that an order has been made granting a fishery and that the beneficiary of it should have to publish a summary of the order to show what it is about. I recollect one which went through this House about 18 months or two years ago in which, when granting a fishery, the Minister had granted the right to impose any fees which the beneficiary of that order chose to fix. This was delegation of the right to tax the public. The order was amended on the recommendation of the Statutory Instruments Committee. I think the public should be told the contents of the Order when notice of it is published.
  The Law Commission recommended the repeal of a number of obsolete provisions of the law. These are matters which perhaps it would be better to consider in Committee. It will be seen from what I have said that these recommendations by the Law Commission have made substantial alterations in the law. It is as well that we in this House should look carefully at those when they are embodied in a consolidation Bill. We have been used to dealing with consolidation Bills as something which just include the existing law and no new law, except for a tidying up with minor corrections and amendments, no new law
  1514
  so far as it concerns merits and real content.
  We have been concerned about whether it is the right time to consolidate and the form in which consolidation has taken place. We are now, under this procedure, presented with a new form of consolidation altogether, something we should study and, it may be, amend. For that reason I have looked carefully at and have drawn the attention of the House to the recommendations of the Law Commission in this case.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I intend to ask for the attention of the House only for a few moments. This is the first Bill under the new procedure which, the House may remember, I had considerable doubts about. I still have them. This has been a relatively simple Bill to deal with, but even so there were points of difficulty, as the Solicitor-General will know from having read the Report of the Joint Select Committee. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in offering my congratulations to the hon. and learned Gentleman on his elevation to his present office.
  The difficulty about this procedure is that members of the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills are the same for every Bill and they are inevitably lawyers, and on this occasion we had to deal with quite a different subject and it is not to be imagined that we are experts on all these subjects.
  When it comes to making actual changes in the law, although the Committee is fortified by the recommendations of the Law Commission it must be the purpose of the procedure that we should bring an independent judgment to bear upon the recommendations. In this case the Committee decided, following the Law Commission, that it should not make any positive recommendation about the amount of the fines in the case of the spawning crabs and lobsters, and, therefore, that was filled in through the wisdom of another place.
  I must confess to still having some doubts about the penalties for not answering questions. The procedure may work all right provided that when Bills come to the House they are treated as ordinary Bills and receive the attention of those

  1515
  hon. Members or those members of another place who are expert in the particular matter dealt with by the Bill. The Bill before us deals with shellfish, and one would naturally hope that hon. Members on both sides who have fishing constituencies and practical knowledge of these matters would be present during the stages of the Bill to consider the not unimportant changes in the law which are brought about.
  The difficulty is that, after all, about a dozen people cannot really hope to spot all the significant questions. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned a point which had not occurred to me—I do not think it occurred to any hon. Member—and that is the question of professional privilege in relation to the penalty for refusing to answer questions asked by an inspector under the enforcement provisions. This point can, of course, be considered during the Committee stage if necessary.
  So I retain an open mind about this procedure. I am sure that it will work only if these Bills are given some degree of attention when they come before the House and do not get through under the rubber stamp of consolidation Bills, because the ordinary kind of consolidation Bills to which the House had been accustomed in the past are very different animals from those which will arise under the new Resolution.
  4.14 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) says he still has doubts about this type of procedure, but we agree with him that it is a comparatively simple Measure with which we are dealing.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General would like me to thank both the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. and learned Member for Buckingham, South for the congratulations which they have offered to him, for which I know he is very grateful.
  There are two substantial points here. The hon. Member for Crosby listed 10, but I am sure that he will agree that only two are of any substance. The first
  1516
  is with regard to the answering of questions asked by an inspector. There is some safeguard in the fact that if a man feels that he is to be incriminated he may think that a good reason for not answering, because it is provided that he may reasonably withhold answers. This is much more a Committee point than a Second Reading point.
  As for the alteration in the fines, the present maximum fines for crabs under the Act of 1877 are £2 for a first offence and £10 for a subsequent offence, whereas those for lobsters under an Act of 1959 are £100 and £200 respectively. In any case, we felt that the penalties for lobsters were too high. Those penalties were provided originally for more serious offences. Let us confess on behalf of our predecessors that a mistake was made in the drafting by which lobsters were put into that category. We thought, rightly I hope, that this was the time to put it right. It was for that reason that the changes were made.
  We are grateful to hon. Gentlemen who have given consideration to this matter, and I trust that the Bill will now be given a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
4.15 p.m.
The Solicitor General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Perhaps, in passing, I may be allowed to thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for their kindly references to me, which I assure the House I greatly appreciate.
This Bill does not possess the pioneer features which I earlier indicated attached to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Bill. It is however, an important consolidation Bill which was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills under the

1517
provisions of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. It deals with such matters as restrictions on the commercial use of under-size sea fish and regulating the fishing of sea fish and their landing. It deals, among other matters, with the powers of British sea fishery officers for enforcement, and makes one or two minor corrections to anomalies which appeared in the Acts which fall to be consolidated.
These matters have received the careful consideration of the Joint Committee, as I have already indicated, and I trust that the House will give this useful Bill a Second Reading.
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: As the Solicitor-General has said, this is a straightforward consolidation Bill except that it comes under the 1949 Act procedure in that it has corrections and minor amendments to the law.
I should like to know why this has been treated as a subject for a separate consolidation Bill. Could we not have included it in consolidating the law on shellfish? Could we not have consolidated it when we were consolidating the sea fisheries regulations which became the Act of 1966? It seems to me that we are having a number of bites at the—perhaps I ought not to say "cherry"—lobster, white fish or other fish. Why not have it all in one consolidation Bill?
If we really are to consolidate, why keep so many statutes outside the consolidation? The Bill itself refers to a number of statutes which it keeps alive. Clause 5(7) mentions the Acts of 1885 and 1895, Clause 15 to the 1883 Act and the 1962 Act, and Clause 18 to the 1923 Act and the 1963 Act. Why cannot we have all the provisions relating the sea fish conservation included within this consolidation Bill?
I cannot, of course, discuss, and I do not intend to discuss, the corrections and minor amendments which were made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, because this House is bound to accept this as existing law, but I can query and I do query whether this is the right moment to consolidate this law.
I noticed in the evidence given before the Joint Select Committee that Parliamentary counsel who was responsible for the drafting of this Bill made a very
1518
important comment which appears at page 8 of the Minutes of Evidence. It was Mrs. Eadie who was Parliamentary counsel and she told the Committee:
"Two international conventions have just recently been concluded dealing with the policing of fishing and regulation of nets and fishing gear and I understand that the Minister, as a result of those conventions, will find it necessary to examine the Act of 1883 in detail and may well have to ask Parliament to amend that Act."
When Parliamentary counsel gave that evidence the Committee was dealing with Clause 15, the powers of sea fishery officers, which are very important, because they may very seriously infringe the liberties of the subject—quite properly, perhaps; but sea fishery officers do have very great powers of entry and of seizure and of questioning and so on. The Joint Select Committee did substantially amend the draft Bill before them in dealing with these powers, and it was in the course of discussing those amendments that this evidence came forward from the Parliamentary counsel.
I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, is this so? Are the Government contemplating an amending Act very soon? If so, would it not have been better to have referred this Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill to the Law Commission in the same way as the previous Bill we were debating was referred? It might have come forward to this House with those amendments and the House could perhaps have avoided a further Bill. This, as I understand it, is further consolidation. We shall be taking three or four bites at this cherry before we are finished, if it is in fact the intention of the Government to bring forward legislation to comply with the Conventions. I would ask that further information be given to the House on this, so that the House can decide whether it is the right moment to consolidate such powers.
4.24 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James H. Hoy): I will try to reply briefly to the two points which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has raised. First of all, it is true to say we could have tried to have had them together in one go, but, as he knows, these are various

1519
Measures which refer to different countries; one applies to England and Wales only, one applies to England and Scotland, and so on. Inasmuch as we are making progress in consolidation I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been grateful for that much.
Then secondly, he is surely aware that there is with regard to boarding at sea an international Policing Convention under which very substantial changes have been proposed and which has already been agreed to by some countries. This would allow the boarding of a ship by nationals of other countries if the vessel were suspected of fishing illegally. If this were to happen it would mean legislation would have to be introduced to meet it; so we obviously have to be free to act if agreement is reached.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
Committee Tomorrow.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Before we come to consideration of the Lords Amendments I think that it would help the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and his hon. Friend if I told him which of his Amendments to the Lords Amendments have been selected and which have not been selected.
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1, to line 4, is not selected. Amendment at line 7 of Lords Amendment No. 2, is not selected. His Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 5, page 5, line 5, is selected.
Of the hon. Gentleman's four Amendments to Lords Amendment No. 11, page 5, line 41, I am calling the first one, with which we are taking the second.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The second or third?
Mr. Speaker: The second. We must be clear. Of the hon. Member's Amendments in that group I am taking the one to line 1, with which we shall discuss the one to line 7.
Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member has two Amendments to line 7 and I wonder which you mean, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The second Amendment. The first one is not selected. The one at line 8 is not selected.
The hon. Member's one Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 14, page 6, line 45, is not selected. His Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 18, page 13, line 43, is not selected. His first three Amendments to Lords Amendment No. 22, page 24, line 33, are not selected. I have selected his two Amendments, at line 7, and line 10, which we shall take together.
I have selected the hon. Member's last Amendment—the Lords Amendment No. 62, page 81, line 43—his Amendment to line 6, but not the previous one to line 3.
I hope that that is of help to the House.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. I understand that it is

1521
debatable whether the Lords Amendments should now be considered. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put the proposition to the House?
Mr. Speaker: It has to be moved before we can debate it.
Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move. That the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Mr. Page: I do not think that we can let this Motion pass without some protest and objection. But before I do object to the Motion I would observe that I am having quite a distinguished afternoon in being able to congratulate two Ministers on the same afternoon, and I do sincerely congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his new appointment. We do welcome him personally; we wish him well personally. We will give him hell Ministerially—we hope. But we do congratulate him upon his appointment.
I have great sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the House rose for the Summer Adjournment the Second Reading of the Bill had not been reached in the other House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to thumb his way through the Official Reports of the other place, as we did, to find what Amendments had been made in Committee and on Report there. He, of course, had officials to help him; we had only scissors and paste in finding out from the Official Reports what Amendments had been made. We did not have them in print until five o'clock yesterday. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt, wanted to table Amendments, as he has done, to the Lords Amendments, and reject some which were made in another place. But how could one make amendments when we did not have them in print and know to what lines reference should be made in making Amendments until about five o'clock yesterday?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was most courteous to me in informing me of the Amendments which the Government were to put forward on Third Reading yesterday in another place. I thank him for that courtesy. However,
1522
I am not the House, and I am not all hon. Members. It is right that the House should know in advance what it is debating the following day. It was quite impossible for anyone to discover until late yesterday what Lords' Amendments were to be debated today. It was not possible until this morning for those of us who wished to make Amendments to the Lords' Amendments to so inform the House by means of the printed Amendment Paper.
It is true that the proofs of the Lords' Amendments were rushed through with great speed between five and six o'clock yesterday. This was all part of this dynamic Government, and we are grateful to the Public Bill Office for the efforts which it made. Through its help, I was able to make the line references to the Amendments which I wanted to put down on the Order Paper.
This is a most unseemly rush in connection with a Bll of this kind which is nearly as complicated as the Land Commission Bill. It needs a great deal of thought. Where Amendments are introduced at this stage, one has to be able to see the results of those Amendments, not only by their own wording but the effect of them upon the rest of the Bill.
Already the Bill reaches us with an error on page 6, line 43, where there is a mistake which cannot be put right now and may necessitate alteration whenever an application is made under the Bill to apportion rateable value between a house on one side and the garage, garden and garden shed on the other. That is what happens when legislation is rushed through.
I do not know whether it is bad management on the part of the Government to rush through legislation in this way, or whether it is just arrogance in thinking that what the Government want can be steamrollered through the House without informing us fully beforehand and giving us a chance to think out the problems raised by the Lords' Amendments.
I protest at this treatment of the House. This is a particularly difficult piece of legislation to understand and interpret, and it needs very careful thought before we put it on the Statute Book in its final form.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said about the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Certainly, we wish him well and congratulate him on his promotion. We hope that he will enjoy his new office. I personally welcome the opportunity to say something nice to and about a member of this Administration.
However, I am particularly concerned to support and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). It is not always that one hears a Front Bench spokesman, while acknowledging the courtesy which has been extended to him, resenting on the part of those behind him the discourtesy which has been extended to them. I desire to endorse With all the strength that I can the remarks which he has made about the mixture of incompetence and discourtesy with which the House is being treated.
It is becoming a habit. It is unfortunate that Ministers are so inured to our protests that they take little notice of them and do nothing to mend their ways. It is something which we are learning to endure somewhat painfully, but I am certain that some of my hon. Friends will wish to voice their views about this kind of treatment.
By no standard is this unwelcome legislation to us, but by no standard is it easy to comprehend and understand. For the Government to have made such a shocking confusion of their programme that we are told only at the very last minute of their views on the Amendments proposed in another place is quite a disgraceful affront to the House of Commons. I do not recall, on any major legislation which I remember that we have been presented with a paper of Amendments every one of which was starred.
I rather hoped that, when the Minister rose to move this Motion he would seek to express regret that the House had had so little notice of it, It seems a quite intolerable burden, and I hope very much that my hon. Friends will agree with me and support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in his very mild and restrained protests at the combination of bad manners and inefficiency with which, once again, the Government have treated the House of Commons.
Mr. MacDermot: I thank both hon. Gentlemen for the courteous parts of their speeches in which they made kindly references to me. If the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) thinks that I am likely to be given hell in my new office, and this is a sample of it, it is to me a very familiar type of debate after my long experiences on Finance and other Bills in my previous offices.
I agree that this is a matter which, perforce, has had to be dealt with in haste and that we have not been able to give the House the length of time to consider these Amendments which we should have liked or which normally would have been given. To achieve that, probably it would have been necessary to recall Parliament earlier. On reflection, hon. Gentlemen themselves will see that that was not really necessary when they come to consider the Amendments. For the most part, they are relatively minor matters. Where they are not, I think that they will be found to be matters which have been debated very fully before.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that I was courteous enough to let him have advance notice of the Government's Amendments. In return, he was equally courteous and had time to let me have advance notice of his Amendments to those Amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(TENANTS ENTITLED TO ENFRANCHISEMENT OF EXTENSION.)
Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 6, at end insert:
"(2) In this Part of this Act references to a leasehold house shall not include a house situated on land belonging to a landlord which is an institution, organisation or trust established for charitable purposes."
4.38 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment from the other place goes to the very heart of the Bill. It concerns a vital policy issue and I cannot disguise that, were it to be accepted,

1525
it would go to the very fundamental purpose of the Bill. It would deprive a residential occupying lessee from the benefits of the Bill, not because he had himself done something which would put him outside the scope of the Bill, not because he was unworthy or deserved any less justice than anyone else, but simply because he had the misfortune, first, to hold the property on leasehold tenure and, second, to have it from a charity. Such a proposition is totally unacceptable to the Government.
The differences among those who would like to treat this category of land-lord in a different way are well known. They do not go to the merits of charities at all. The issue is whether, in a general Act of Parliament, it is possible to single out one group of tenants or landlords and give them exceptional and different treatment.
We canvassed these arguments very fully in Committee on 11th May, and in this House on Report on 20th June, when a new Clause having a somewhat similar effect was moved and withdrawn. I do not think, therefore that I will be held to be discourteous if I do not recapitulate all the arguments which were raised on those occasions, and indeed when the Amendment was discussed in another place.
The broad position is that the Government say, and said in the White Paper containing their policy statement for leasehold reform, that it was
"quite indefensible, if justice is to be done as between the freeholder and occupying leaseholder, that at the end of the term, the law should allow the ownership of the house to revert to the freeholder without his paying for it so that he gets not only the land but also the house, the improvements and everything the leaseholder and his predecessors have added to it."
That is the general proposition.
I understand that to a degree at any rate, that proposition is accepted by all parties in the House. We are told that all parties accept the need for reform, and accept enfranchisement as one of the methods of achieving it. I remember one hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, both here and upstairs, saying that all members of his party were enfranchisers, and I am sure that this would be found to be true of the Liberal
1526
Members, were any of them present to intervene in the debate.
If that is the case, if it is a general proposition that the law has to be further amended—and this is perhaps only a larger and more radical reform than that which took place in 1954, and earlier in 1927—one has only to state it to see how difficult it would be to take out a large body of leaseholders from that proposition.
I said just now that if the Amendment were accepted it would knock the heart out of the Bill. As far as we can estimate, about 1 million—and possibly more—leasehold houses will be affected by the Measure, and I think it is true to say that at least 300,000 people are occupying leasehold houses owned by charities of one kind and another. It would therefore be a novel principle to say that because of the character of the landlord, which is not in question, or because of what he does with the funds which may arise from his leasehold investment, there can be different treatment for him in general legislation.
That was not recommended by the Departmental Committee which heard many representatives of the charities and the property owners. No one suggested that special treatment should be given to charities. It was not a course which was followed in the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act. Indeed, as has been said from this side of the House on a number of occasions, the effect of the 1954 Act on the investments of charities and others might have been even more marked as a result of this Measure. There was no suggestion that there should be an exception. Charities were not excluded under the Rent Act. They were not excluded from the betterment levy in respect of their investment land. At this stage it would be a novel departure, not hitherto recognised in English law, to exclude them; and, at the same time, to do so would deprive a considerable body of leaseholders of the benefits and protection of the Bill.
I have, unfortunately, had the misfortune to represent two constituencies in which there have been some leasehold interests, and I can assure the House, if it needs an assurance on this, that where leaseholders are at the end of their term, or where they are suffering from the

1527
vexations and frustrations which they feel under the leasehold system, it matters little to them if the landlord is a property company, or a charity. I therefore must reaffirm the line which the Government have taken from the beginning, namely, that they cannot possibly accept the Amendment, and if it is pressed to a Division I must ask the House to disagree with it.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. James Allason: I am sure that the Government would not wish to tax charities, if for no other reason than that to do so would make them even more unpopular than they know they are at the moment. The question is whether, by this Measure the Government are taxing charities, and with great skill the Parliamentary Secretary omitted that consideration.
The question is whether the terms of compensation laid down in the Bill are fair. If they were, there would be no suggestion that there was any necessity to exempt charities, but all the arguments that we have heard show that charities will lose substantial sums of money through the operation of the Bill. There is no doubt that the terms of compensation are unfair.
When this Measure was considered on Report, the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Welsh Office, said:
"… we were influenced to a degree by some of the wealthier members of the Socialist Party who were shocked when they discovered the enormous tax free capital gains which they were liable to make under the Bill if the limitations were removed entirely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1532.]
The right hon. Lady was referring to the rateable value limitations, and because of the enormous tax free capital gains which were to be made under the Bill the Government restored the rateable value limit.
The effect is that they have abolished "enormous tax-free capital gains" and have substituted "substantial tax-free capital gains". This apparently, is the new Socialism—a present from the Government of up to £10,000 to the tenant, at the expense of the landlord. This is good Socialism, but if the figure is above £10,000 it becomes enormous, and, therefore, is abolished.
Whatever view hon. Gentlemen opposite may hold about substantial tax-free
1528
gains at the expense of a landlord, surely no one would support substantial tax-free gains at the expense of a charity? I object to this when it involves a landlord, but when a charity is involved I think that the provision is doubly objectionable.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the House had accepted the need for enfranchisement. I do not think that the House has accepted the need for all the provisions to which he referred. The House has agreed to enfranchisement on fair terms. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there could not be any exceptions to these provisions, but this is precisely what the Bill does. It provides for exceptions, for instance when redevelopment is required by local authorities, by the Commission for New Towns, by nationalised industries, by hospital boards, and by universities. In such cases the tenant will lose the benefit of enfranchisement which the hon. Gentleman said must be granted to all tenants. He cannot ride that horse.
I think that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman were to reconsider the position with regard to charities. The object of the Bill was to deal with cases of hardship. Nobody has managed to quote an example of hardship involving charities. They are recognised as good landlords. They do not oppress their tenants, and I think, therefore, that it would be reasonable to exclude them from the Bill.
Sir Barnett Janner: I cannot see that the argument put forward by the hon. Member opposite has any relevance to the points made by the Minister. I do not know whether the House realises that the question of leasehold reform has been on the cards for many years. For 20, 30, 40, or more years everybody has known that at some stage or another it was intended to introduce this reform, although perhaps not in precisely these terms.
Everybody knew it—charities included. Consequently, anything which they acquired within the last 50 or 60 years should have been acquired with the knowledge that at some time the law would be amended so that the tenant could not be dispossessed. I should have thought that that was obvious to anyone who was negotiating a deal—certainly in Wales.

1529
I cannot see why charities should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill and why an individual should be turned out of his home because the landlord happens to be a charity. I do not think that the House would want to carry out an uncharitable act in respect of an individual who happens to be in possession of the premises in order that a charitable act may be done in respect of somebody else, for another purpose.
The Lords Amendment would defeat the objects of the Bill. It is a wrecking Amendment, and in the circumstances the Government are right not to concede the point which the Opposition have attempted to make, but which cannot reasonably be made in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Percy Grieve: I hope that the House will agree to the Lords Amendment. I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the Bill has almost universal approval in the House. Had the Bill given proper compensation and not unfair compensation for the enfranchisement of leaseholds it may well have had the approval of almost everyone in the House, but the criticism which has constantly been made by hon. Members on this side of the House is that the compensation given is grossly unfair. This is exemplified by the fact—it is well known; case after case has been cited in our debates—that those who enfranchise their leases will make considerable capital gains.
Sir B. Janner: I ask the hon. and learned Member to excuse me for leaving, for purposes of which he is aware.
Mr. Grieve: Considerable capital gains will be made by those who enfranchise their leases. The matter that we are now debating is the question whether those capital gains should be made by ordinary private individuals at the expense of charities. This is a question which the House must answer. Are we to benefit citizens financially, on a large scale, at the expense of charities? My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said that he was sure that the Government would not wish to tax charities, but the record of the Government in that respect is singularly bad.
During the last two years we have had example after example of attempts by
1530
my hon. Friends to remove taxation from charities, all of which attempts have been strenuously resisted by the Government. We have had example after example of taxes imposed upon charities which the Government have insisted in maintaining. Only after a lengthy debate on Amendments moved by hon. Members on this side of the House were charities relieved from Selective Employment Tax. I believe that it was in July when we sought to exempt charity Christmas cards from taxation and were resisted strenuously by the Government. They maintained taxation on those cards.
I do not often find myself in complete agreement with the observations of Socialist Ministers, or even ex-Socialist Ministers, but I was very impressed by what Lord Shawcross said in another place, and found myself in complete agreement with it. He said that nothing so confiscatory as this Bill had been put on the Statute Book since the reign of Henry VIII. That is so. The Bill taxes charities; it benefits private citizens at the expense of citizens. The Amendment is designed to exempt charities from the ill effects of the Bill and I hope that the House will accept it.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: On more than one occasion in our debates on the Bill I have declared my interest, and it is only right that I should do so once again on the Lords Amendment. As a lessee of a trust for what are called charitable purposes in law I am directly affected by the provisions of the Amendment. By a most extraordinary and no doubt wholly unintended coincidence the noble Lord who introduced the Amendment in another place happened to refer to the very road in which I live as an instance of the evils which would be incurred if the Amendment were not accepted.
I can well understand the argument that charities should benefit from the taxpayer. I can understand the argument that, on occasions, charities should benefit from the contributions of ratepayers in the areas served by those charities—and I would like to see a somewhat better definition of a charity than exists at the moment, in order to give proper effect to that principle—but I cannot understand the arguments of those who suggest that charities should benefit not only from the taxpayer and the ratepayer but also at

1531
the expense of the lessees from whom they draw their incomes.
Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that the vice of the Bill is that it benefits certain individuals in the community and not the whole of the community, at the expense of another set of individuals in the community, namely, the owners of leasehold houses?
Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman is inviting me to debate the question of compensation. I am sure that I should be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I complied with that proposal in a debate on this Amendment.
Since the Dulwich College Estate—which is in my constituency and which was made so much of in the other place as an example of the type of estate covered by the Amendment—has been in issue, however, it is only fair to say that the policy of that estate—and no doubt of most well-managed estates—is that when houses have reached the end of their leases, although by no means necessarily the end of their lives, they should be demolished and redevelopment should then take place.
5.0 p.m.
In other words, estates of that kind expect to secure their income out of the redevelopment value of the land. The compensation provided by this Bill is precisely the redevelopment value of the land. This point has been made again and again, but it has never been adequately reviewed. I return to the point that I was making before I was interrupted and it is quite simply that if one says that a charity is to be treated in a different way from other freehold lessees holding residential leasehold property, what one is really saying is that a lessee who happened to be a lessee of a charity should subsidise his freeholder in a way which other lessees are not required to do by the Bill.
I cannot see any conceivable justification for such a division, and some of the justifications that have been made in another place and elsewhere have been quite extraordinary. It has been said, although what this has to do with charities I do not know, that if the Bill goes through without the Amendment proposed and
1532
adopted in another place, which we are now discussing, the green areas of my constituency would gradually deteriorate into slums.
I must say that it is a fine comment upon the people who live in my constituency, in particular upon the Dulwich College Estate. I wonder whether they would be gratified to hear that suggestion made about their own future sense of duty and their sense of amenity by the noble lord who introduced the Amendment in another place.
There is no ground whatever for treating charities in any different way from other freeholders when one is dealing, not with taxation matters, but with matters between one citizen and another. For that reason I hope that the Government will stand firm and will not accept the arguments that have been put forward on the other side.
Mr. John Peyton: We are accustomed to hearing extraordinary arguments adduced from time to time. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] Those which we have heard from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—were of the oddest. He castigated this Amendment on the basis that it was a wrecking one. In our view the fact that an Amendment is wrecking, when aimed at a Bill of this kind, is a positive virtue. The hon. Gentleman's second argument was even odder. He said that everyone had known for a long time that there was a possibility of legislation.
If everyone is to conduct their affairs in such a way that they must treat themselves as being on notice of certain legislative possibilities once some crackpot politician or political party of unsound judgment has delivered its ideas on the subject, when divorced from office, then there would be even more paralysis in the country than there is at present. It is a most extraordinary argument for the hon. Gentleman to put forward. It is a strange notion, and I do not think that it could come from any source other than a Socialist one.
Our objection is that this Bill is aimed at dealing with the oppressive landlords and it is a reflection of the remarkable utterances which came from the right hon.

1533
Gentleman, who unfortunately is Leader of the House, when he said "I have a prejudice against landlords." It is an odd thing to come from the lips of a Minister who was contemplating legislation. It devalued—not that that was necessary or effective for those of us who are more in touch—but for the general public it must have immensely devalued his every utterance on this subject, for which he had Ministerial responsibility.
It was a plain admission that he was a prejudiced witness. There is no charge against charities that they are unfair or vicious landlords. They are known to be good and fair landlords, who take a long-term view of the interests of their property and certainly would not wish to have the reputation of having bullied or deprived their tenants of their fair rights.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), rightly said, if there were fair terms available to charities for loss of their rights I dare say that a lot of the objections which we are now expressing would fall to the ground. But there are not fair terms available. My hon. Friends have been absolutely right in expressing their indignation at the way in which the Government have callously and carelessly overridden the rights of charitable organisations.
It seems that they prefer the integrity of their own wretched Measure rather than violate it by a degree of justice. I find this shocking, regrettable and even surprising, even though it comes from a Government which has shown an addiction to dogma rather than to good justice.
Mr. A. P. Costain: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in resisting these proposals. I would also like to declare an interest. I am the trustee of a large charitable organisation, some of the income of which depends upon ground rents. I am quite astounded by the arguments put forward opposite. The Front Bench opposite seem to be saying that this cannot be done because there are too many houses involved.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) made a short speech and then left, on the basis that his mind
1534
was made up. He argued that the tenants might be dispossessed of houses by a charitable institution. It is highly unlikely that a charitable institution would want to dispossess. Such institutions are among the best landlords.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) raised an extraordinary argument, that the charitable organisation which had bought these properties, as a reasonable and safe investment, should have them confiscated and they should be given away to the sitting tenant for a lower price. The hon. Member is saying that he ought to have the benefit of the charity's property.
The Government seem to be hell-bent on attacking charities. I have come to the conclusion that charities are a form of private initiative and private enterprise, and the Socialist Party is against this, whatever it is. Charities must fall because of a doctrinaire approach. We will have difficulty in persuading the Front Bench opposite of its folly, but I hope that my hon. Friends, and our friends in the country will take every opportunity of showing the Socialists how wrong they are.
Mr. Skeffington: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House.
There has not been general disagreement with my major proposition, that when one is enacting a national law it would be novel and almost without precedent to stipulate a category of landlords who should be better treated, and a category of tenants who will be worse treated because of the nature of their tenure. This proposition remains true and has only to be stated for its practical force to be seen. This is coupled with the fact that there was no suggestion in the report of the departmental committee in 1950 or in the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act that charities which were adversely affected then, as they may be now, were to be exempted. That must remain, under all Governments, a general proposition.
The hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) did not think that the case could be generally made out that charities were worse landlords than any other group and I am sure that this is the intention of the charities themselves. However, it was pointed out in Committee that many

1535
of those conducting the business of charities, by the very law under which they operate, have sometimes far less discretion than does a private company because, generally, they are charged with getting the maximum return on the funds invested.
When I was associated with one of the bodies mentioned today and in another place and was an officer of one of the relevant associations, we had innumerable examples of those acting on behalf of charities being forced to take a line of action which at any rate went to the utmost rigour of the law. No one was blaming the individuals—those were the circumstances in which they operated—but this is not grounds for saying that, because an organisation is a charitable body, therefore it must behave in a certain way, better than anyone else, and deserve better treatment, because experience is that things do not work out like that.
Another argument put forward related not to exempting charities but to whether or not the compensation is right. If there is to be a leasehold enfranchisement scheme, the basis for it in paragraph 11 of the White Paper was that the land belonged to the landowner, but that what was on it belonged to the leaseholder, and that is the formula in the Bill. There is no grounds for suggesting that this is inequitable or unfair to any category of landowners, when one considers all transactions.
But all these arguments boil down to this—what we are trying to do in this legislation, I thought with the general agreement of the House, is to provide that 1 million people will have the opportunity of regarding their homes as their own, because they can have the compulsory right of purchasing the freehold or extending their lease. This is all that the Bill does and, at this stage, to attempt either another basis of compensation, as is implicit in many of the arguments put forward today, or to exempt this substantial body of tenants would be to knock the heart out of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will express its strong disagreement with the Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has so firmly
1536
rejected any sort of compromise on this provision. He said that we were talking about 300,000 houses out of the 1 million-plus which will be affected by the Bill. I am surprised by the size of that figure and would not have thought that so many houses were held by charitable landlords or landlords and charities, but perhaps the definition of a charity has been extended rather wide, in view of that figure.
However, if it is true that 300,000 houses are involved, that shows how much of the funds given to charities is to go into the pockets of unintended beneficiaries under the Bill. These houses are to be sold at less than market value: this cannot be denied. The evil which the public, with approval, see this Bill as combating and remedying—although I think that it would be remedied in other ways—is to prevent the extortionate demands upon tenants at the fag ends of their leases. No one wants that and no one can accuse Dulwich or Bourneville of acting in that way. I was shocked at the Parliamentary Secretary's side swipe at the administration of charity landlords. They have been the finest landlords in the country and have produced estates of which we are very proud.
Second, compensation is not, under the present law, market value and, therefore, the Bill will be taking away an asset of the landlord. Some hon. Members may think that there is ethical justification in the case of the private landlord, that he deserves all that is coming to him. But when the landlord is a charity, from whom are we taking that asset and that money? Not from the landlord, but from the beneficiaries of the charity, like Alleyn School, Dulwich College, the picture gallery at Dulwich—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who wants to keep that up?"] There may be strength in that remark, but it is a matter of opinion. I am on sounder ground, perhaps, in talking about the ancient traditions of the schools there, whose income and capital will be very greatly reduced.
In Bourneville, the beneficiaries are the tenants themselves. This is an organisation such as we know in the housing society and housing association world. One may say that this is just a grand share out among the beneficiaries, but there are many rack rent tenants on those

1537
estates and there is the question of good management of the estates and of their proper future development.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said that it was nonsense to talk about enfranchised estates slipping into slums. It may be nonsense in regard to individual houses, because probably a tenant who has acquired his freehold or an extended lease will devote greater time to his house and keep it well, but it is the common amenities which will deteriorate. The Bill does nothing to solve the problem of estates with common amenities, except under Clause 19, but, as I said of that Clause before, "Thank you for nothing".
No one will take the responsibility under Clause 19, not even the charities—
Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman says that no one will take advantage of that Clause. Is he giving an undertaking that the Dulwich College Estate will not do so?
Mr. Page: No, I hope that the Dulwich College Estate will seek other ways of doing it, perhaps through this House. I certainly hope that the Estate will be preserved, despite the Bill. I am sure that no one thought of charities being deprived of these substantial sums, both of capital and of income, when they read the White Paper or even when they saw the draft Bill.
Of course, the solution might have been to allow tenants of charities to have extended leases, but not the freehold. The solution might have been to give proper compensation. In that case, the position would not have been so bad for the charities.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made great point of what he called a general proposition that this was a national law, that all tenants should be treated alike and that tenants should not be deprivileged or suffer disadvantage merely because they were tenants of a certain landlord. The hon. Gentleman has not read on in the
Bill, because that is exactly what Clause 29 does.
Why, under Clause 29, is a local authority allowed to deny a tenant the right to enfranchise and yet a charity is not? Why is a commission for the new towns entitled to deny enfranchisement and a charity is not? Why is any university body, university college or the university itself allowed to refuse enfranchisement and a charity is not?
Why is a regional hospital board, a hospital management committee or the board of governors of a teaching hospital in a better position that the governors of Dulwich College, or that charity or teaching institution? Why can those bodies deny a tenant the right to enfranchise? Why should a nationalised industry be allowed to refuse enfranchisement if a charity is not? To wind up this list, why should a harbour authority and a statutory water undertaker be allowed what a charity is not allowed?
This completely pulls the rug from under the hon. Gentleman's feet whet he puts forward his general proposition that every tenant must have the right to enfranchise and that we must not make any distinction. Yet there are those distinctions in the Bill.
It would have been right and proper for the Government to accept the position and say, "We never intended this to happen when we produced the White Paper. We never intended to deprive these charities of their capital and income in this way and we are prepared, if they satisfy the Minister that they are running the estate well, that they have plans for proper development and are treating their tenants properly, to let them go on and refuse the tenant enfranchisement." The Government are simply being obstinate in saying that they want the Bill as a national law applying to everybody.
Question put, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 127.
Lords Amendment No. 2: In line 31, at the end insert:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (1) to (4) of this section, this Part of this Act shall not confer on the tenant of a house any right by reference to his occupation of it as his residence if the house forms part of an estate which on application made by the owner to the High Court either before the appointed day for this Part of the Act or within not more than three months thereafter is certified by the High Court as an estate held under statutory enactment or trust deed the purpose of which is to maintain the entity of the freehold estate and that on the date of application to the High Court the owner of the estate was required to have regard only to the letting value of the site (without including anything for the value of buildings on the site) in granting to a tenant of a house and premises an extension or renewal of an existing long tenancy at a low rent:
Provided that in the event of the conditions not continuing to apply to the estate the High Court on application by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State shall be empowered to cancel the certificate and thereupon this Part of this Act shall apply to the estate as from the date of cancellation of the certificate.
In default of agreement between the owner of the estate and a tenant of a house held on a long lease at a low rent as to the letting value of the site of the house and premises the provisions of section 21 of this Act shall apply as if it were rent to be fixed under section 15."
Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, which was carried in the other place, is identical with one
1542
which was moved unsuccessfully by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) in Committee.
The Amendment was avowedly designed to exclude Letchworth from the Bill. It has, however, been framed in general terms, as it had to be, to avoid turning the Measure into a hybrid Bill. The result of this is that the benefits of the Bill would be taken away from leaseholders in any estate which, on an application by the owner to the High Court not more than three months after the appointed day, could be shown to be held under a statutory enactment or trust deed, the purpose of which is to maintain the entity of the freehold estate, and which involves a requirement on the owner to have regard only to the letting value of the site if he grants an extension or renewal of an existing long tenancy at a low rent, without, however, invoking any requirement on him to extend or renew such a lease.
This goes far too wide, particularly in including estates held under trust deed. It would be quite possible for an ordinary landlord to execute such a trust deed, and thereby avoid the provisions of the Bill as to enfranchisement, without even being under any obligation to renew or extend leases. The defect of the Amendment is inherent and irremediable because it was drafted both to be wide enough to bring in Letchworth and also to be wide enough to be of general application and not a local measure purporting

1543
to be a general one. Any attempt to narrow it would be liable to exclude the Corporation or to hybridise the Bill. The dilemma is inevitable in any attempt to meet, by general provision, some situation which is thought to be unique.
Having said that, I wish to make it clear that I personally have some sympathy with the objects of the movers of the Amendment. But even if it were possible in this Measure—which, for reasons I have explained, it is not—to exclude Letchworth, I do not think that that would be a satisfactory solution to the problem. It is clear that there is, to say the least, a substantial body of leaseholders in Letchworth who are anxious to obtain the benefits of enfranchisement. They would resent it very much if they were deprived of the advantages of the Bill; and I see no reason why they should be.
On the other hand, Letchworth Garden City is something quite unique in our social history. It pioneered an idea which has an important part in the philosophy of the Labour Party and which, I think, is accepted by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is the idea that the profit arising from the development of land is something which was created by the community and which should, at least in part, return to the community.
At the time of Ebenezer Howard the only practical way of achieving that was by adaptation of the long leasehold system, but many people now feel that this way of achieving that object is something that has become somewhat out of date. It has been overtaken by other changes in the law, including, in particular, this Measure to grant leasehold enfranchisement.
On the question of the development of land—or, as people in Letchworth call it, the "incremental value"—belonging to the community, there would be no problem if Letchworth Corporation were a local authority because it could then, on enfrachisement, reserve its development rights under the provisions of Clause 30(1). However, there is no point in our seeking to give a similar power of reservation to Letchworth Corporation under this Measure because that Corporation has no power of compulsory purchase which would enable it to ensure that it
1544
could make use of the reservation. Without the reservation being in the hands of a body having powers of compulsory purchase, a solution of deadlock could result, with nobody being able to carry out the redevelopment.
It looks, therefore, as if the right course might be for the Corporation to transfer its freehold interest in the leasehold houses to the urban district council, as, I believe, it has done in the case of those properties which are let by the council at a rack rent and which make up about half the population of the homes of Letchworth. Legislation would, I believe, be needed to achieve this effect, but I think that everybody agrees that whatever solution were adopted for Letchworth, some sort of amending private local Bill would be required to achieve the object.
I am merely putting forward the suggestion in the hope that it may prove a constructive one. As to what form that legislation might be, it would, of course, have to be drafted to meet the situation resulting from this Measure and deal with the case of tenants who had already served notice under the provisions of the Bill but in whose cases the freehold interest had not been transferred.
There is some time available, as I assume that the Letchworth Corporation most certainly, whoever else may or may not do so, will be likely to sponsor a scheme under Clause 19 in order to preserve the necessary machinery of control by covenants to maintain the character of the estate, and to provide for suitable monetary contributions by the enfranchised leaseholders to the amenity services which continue to be provided under such a scheme. If the Corporation were to do this it would give time to promote the necessary Private Bill legislation. I believe that by this means it would be possible for Letchworth to preserve both the entity of the town and the incremental value, as they term it there, for the community, while still granting enfranchisement to the leaseholders.
I have also received representations in the matter from the Bourneville Trust, which is a somewhat comparable body but with not quite precisely the same problems. I do not want to go into this in any detail, but if that Trust, on reflection were to consider that it would

1545
not receive sufficient protection under a Clause 19 scheme it might like to consider the possibility of doing something similar in the way of private legislation.
For the reasons I have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must advise the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Martin Maddan:We are grateful to the Minister for a concise and clear explanation of the purpose of this Lords Amendment and of why the Government do not accept it. That rejection is not entirely watertight. I feel that the Lords Amendment could provide the basis of a very satisfactory solution had it been the wish of the Government to accept it and, perhaps, make some slight amendment to it.
We have discussed the case of Letchworth in this House on Second Reading, in Committee, and to a certain degree on Report. When those of us who are interested in the realities of Letchworth now take into account the preservation of the character of the town and the interests of the ratepayers as a whole—who, not only the leaseholders, have taken on the burden of underwriting the compensation provisions determined only recently under the Letchworth Garden City Corporation Act—when we take into account all these things, we feel, though reluctantly, that in view of the opinion expressed by the Minister and in view of the advice that he and the Government Whips will no doubt give to his colleagues, we should do what we can to preserve the interests of the town of Letchworth and of its individual people, and in these circumstances go along the lines that he has suggested. Before leaving the matter like that, however, it is necessary and right to make one or two observations.
Dealing with the previous Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary very much emphasised that it would be wrong to separate tenants into different categories merely because the landlords were of one character or another. That is not the case in Letchworth where it is the tenants rather than the landlords who have the particular characteristic that they have the right and practice, if I may put it in a sort of shorthand form, to have leases renewed or extended without taking into account the value of the bricks and
1546
mortar they may have put on the land. Letchworth, therefore, is a unique case.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a substantial body of these leaseholders in Letchworth want enfranchisement and, of course, there are some leaseholders who do want it. How substantial that body is is open to a great deal of question, because in the campaign that has gone on there has been misrepresentation of the facts of the case and of the policies and actions of the Corporation. There have been petitions and counter-petitions, and I am sure that, with their experience, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that various citizens signed both in the confusion and argumentation that has gone on. We therefore have to give some weight to the fact that there are leaseholders who want to enfranchise, but we should not be taken away by the idea that this body of opinion is very substantial.
A further point is that the Bill as now drawn excludes houses of over £200 rateable value, or £400 in London. Tenants of such houses may not enfranchise themselves. If we are to drive a coach and horses through the principle of the Bill in this way, it seems very reasonable that there should be a little phaeton driven through it in respect of Letchworth. If there is to be private legislation, the necessary Bill, for reasons that the Minister has given, will have to be drawn up with speed, because if Parliament does not consider such a private Measure quickly there is a danger that the whole entity of Letchworth will disintegrate, and it will be no good coming along after that because it will be quite impossible then to turn the clock back.
The Minister's proposition, which is an interesting one, is that the freehold of the leasehold houses now belonging to Letchworth Garden City Corporation set up under the 1962 Act should be transferred to the urban district council. This is the first time I have thought about or heard of this proposition, but it may point which way. Nevertheless, at this hour on a Tuesday afternoon, at only one or two minutes' notice, I would not like to say that this is necessarily the best way, and certain questions come to my mind.

1547
When the 1962 Act was before Parliament, the sponsor, the urban district council itself, was very keen that the ownership of the freehold should be taken out of party politics; that it should not become a sort of football to be kicked about at every municipal election. The Corporation was therefore established to become the landlord, with the chairman and the three members to be appointed by the Minister, one member by the Hertfordshire County Council and one only by the urban district council. That was the urban district council's own proposal, because although it wanted a voice in the Corporation it did not want to fulfil the role of landlord.
The Minister's idea is a neat one, in that it fits in with legislation as we presume it will be enacted, but I am wondering whether it would be possible in those circumstances for it to become by custom, or formal agreement, the practice for the management of those leaseholds, although the freehold was actually vested in the urban district council, to reside with the corporation. I do not think that the leaseholders or the other ratepayers in the town—the people contributing to the rates whether they live in council houses or whether commercial or industrial property—would wish to see the freehold of the leasehold houses become subject to party political argumentation at election times and in the council chamber.
These are only preliminary observations on the Ministers' suggestion, which is an interesting one. I regret that he has not seen fit to go on the lines of the Lords Amendment, but on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread, and that if the Letchworth Council is to promote a Private Bill we want it to do so in an atmosphere of as much unity in this House as possible, I do not want to dispute too much the principle of what the Minister said. We must, of course, have regard to the details and keep our eye on the objective, which is to preserve the entity of the town and to retain its incremental value for the benefit of the community as a whole.
The Minister has put forward this as an idea. I did not actually hear that he committed himself to supporting it, as he or one of his colleagues might be required to do if a Private Bill were to
1548
come before the House. We all know that the Government Front Bench attitude may be of great importance, to say nothing of the services of the Ministry. I hope that before we conclude the debate on this Amendment the Minister will be allowed to go a little further in clarifying these points.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I had not intended to detain the House at all on this matter, particularly in view of the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister,—whom I take the opportunity of congratulating on achieving his new office—has made such an overwhelming case in favour of excluding this Amendment and the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) has not really sought to displace it, but I want to say a few words because of what was said in the last section of the speech of the hon. Member. I hope my hon. and learned Friend, even if he were able to do so, will not give any commitment as to future legislation. Clearly this is a matter which needs to be very carefully considered by all sections of the community in Letchworth, not merely the urban district council but the many people who have taken the view that it is right to include the lessees of the corporation within the provisions of this Bill.
No doubt quite unintentionally, the hon. Member for Hove expressed himself in a somewhat misleading way when he referred to the lessees of the Corporation of Letchworth as having the right to obtain an extension of their leases. They have no such right. Indeed that is the whole point which the Minister was making, as I understood, in his opening remarks on this Amendment. If they had not only the right, which they now enjoy, the lease having been extended, to hold their property at a modern ground rent, but also the right to have the leases extended, there would be a very different situation. They have not got that right. They can be turned out. My information is that on a number of occasions the existing occupier, the lessee, has been turned out of the property he has occupied in Letchworth.
The hon. Member spoke about misrepresentation, and I rather gathered that he was not confining his comments to one side or the other. Certainly some of the remarks that were made at the time when the Amendment was accepted

1549
in another place could well have given the general public the view that Letchworth was wholly united in wanting to be excluded from the Bill. This was expressly said by some. Therefore I think it only right to say what happened thereafter. Those who believe that Letchworth should be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of this Bill like every other community, having heard that said, approached me and said, "We do not think this is true. What should we do about it?" I said, "There is only one way of finding out. That is to go round canvassing house by house with a perfectly fair and open statement of what your intentions and wishes are and to ask people whether they are willing to sign that statement or not".
The Minister has the result of that canvass in his Ministry. I think it right that the figures should be known. According to the corporation, there are 2,632 leasehold properties which the corporation holds. No doubt some of those are not in the eligible category, being above £200 rateable value. No doubt some of the lessees would not be eligible by reason of length of residence as yet. One has to make allowances for these factors, but a house-to-house canvass over a relatively short period of time has produced the result that of those properties the occupants of 1,663 say they are in favour of Letchworth being included in the Bill. If my arithmetic is right, that is 63 per cent., which is a very much higher figure than is ever achieved in Letchworth local council elections.
This is a matter of considerable importance. It is right that it should be known, I applaud the fact that the citizens of Letchworth, or rather, the lessees at Letchworth, clearly take the same view ac my hon. and learned Friend in seeking the removal of this Amendment.
Mr. Maddan: I know that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) will not want to rest too much on that, because he probably is also aware that many of those who signed the original petition then signed what we might call the counter-petition.
Mr. Silkin: I can only give the facts as I have given them. The number of people who signed this petition was 2,779 and each signature has been very carefully checked against the electoral register
1550
in order to ensure that there has been no duplication of any kind. The document which they have signed, which I have seen, makes it abundantly clear. Anyone who reads it knows what he is signing.
6.0 p.m.
Sir Lionel Heald: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). I am one of those who have for some years done all they can to help the Letchworth ideal when the matter has arisen in the House. I came here today with the idea that I should support the Lords in the Amendment, but, having listened to the Minister of State, I believe that his argument is clear and should be accepted. If it is, I hope that we can rely on his giving at any rate sympathetic consideration to the point of view advanced by my hon. Friend. We know that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give an undertaking today, but those of us who have had to deal with these matters know that, when difficult legislation of this kind involving private legislation becomes necessary, the attitude of the Department and of the Minister is of the highest importance.
I personally would be quite satisfied if we could feel that the Minister of State would give it sympathetic consideration. If I am not intruding improperly by suggesting it, I suggest that, if the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove got together, a good result would be obtained. From what I have heard, I am given to hope that perhaps it would be better if the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) were not to take part in that amicable effort. It is important that, if possible, we should enable a satisfactory arrangement to be arrived at in repaid to Letch-worth, having regard to its history. I therefore hope that we can be told by the Minister of State that the considerations put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove will be given open-minded consideration.
Mr. Graham Page: The Amendment and the Government's opposition, yet sympathy, towards it put us in a rather curious position. The Letchworth Corporation is operating under a Statute. The Statute had exactly the same intentions as the Bill—the protection of the

1551
tenants on that estate and the relief of hardship at the end of leases. It provided that the Coporation should be entitled to re-let only at the value of the site, without regard to the value of the bricks and mortar on the site. This is a statutory management body, approved recently by the House.
In the Bill compensation is based upon the assumption that there is a fifty-year lease, an extended lease—that is, upon the assumption that the tenant has, without purchase, the full value of the house. The corollary to that is that, if the tenant is granted a fifty-year lease, he will have as good as a freehold. He will have something of which he can dispose at a price at which he might sell the freehold. Therefore, if there were some arrangement of this sort, as indeed there is in the statutory responsibilities of Letchworth, the tenants do not suffer if they are granted such an extended lease—a fifty-year lease or a 99-year lease.
Although it may be that on some occasions at Letchworth, for some reasons of development, a tenant has been asked to vacate at the end of his lease, I understand that in the great majority of cases the extended lease is granted, so the tenant suffers nothing under this provision, as compared with the tenant of any other landlord under the Bill. Nor, for that matter, will tenants of property held upon a similar trust.
The Minister of State called the attention of the House to that part of the Amendment which refers to bodies holding an estate on a trust similar to the statutory obligation under which Letchworth holds. The Amendment provides that this must be certified by the High Court to be a trust similar to the statutory obligations of—we have called it Letchworth, although Letchworth is not mentioned in the Amendment.
I would have liked to have seen the Amendment accepted. I offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) on his tenacity over this matter throughout the passage of the Bill. From Second Reading, through the Committee stage, through Report and Third Reading, he has put forward this case most cogently. It seems that perhaps he is now in sight of reward. He has been skilful in de-hybridis-
1552
ing the Amendment. [Laughter.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman can invent the word "hybridising", I am entitled to invent the word "de-hybridising". My hon. Friend managed to get the Amendment in order at each stage of the Bill.
If others were to take advantage, by the creation of trusts of this sort, of a general Amendment to the law, why not? I do not think that tenants would suffer, as compared with tenants under the Bill.
However, the Minister of State has suggested that this could be done by private legislation. I am still a little doubtful about what the suggestion is. The hon. and learned Gentleman made the strange statement that the estate can save itself by cutting its own throat, by selling or disposing of its property to the local authority. I do not see how it saves the Corporation to get rid of its property to the local authority. This just shows the extraordinary results of legislation of this sort, which we on this side have said all along was not properly thought out before its introduction.
Another strange suggestion made by the Minister of State was that the Letchworth Corporation should adopt the fiction of accepting a scheme under Clause 19 so as to hold matters up for a year and get the Bill in. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I misunderstood the Minister of State, but that is what it sounded like from this side. If this is a good suggestion, why on earth was not it made before? It is not as if my hon. Friend the Member for Hove has not put this forward many times. Over the past few months this proposition has been known to the House. The Government have known that the Letchworth Corporation was worthy of some particular consideration. Why has not this been proposed before so that the Corporation was able to prepare a Bill before 17th November?
Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman should be fair to my right hon. Friend the former Minister, who said on many occasions that this was a matter for a Private Bill.
Mr. Page: Perhaps my recollection is at fault. If that was said by the former Minister, I withdraw what I have said. The suggestion was certainly not put forward in the form in which it is now put forward, which I understand to be

1553
some type of assurance from the Government that they will give a fair wind to private legislation of this sort. If it is legislation which enables this estate to continue to be managed and developed by this Corporation, and not just disposed of to the local authority—I do not believe that would do any good—that may be the right thing to do.
I repeat that I would have liked the Amendment to have been agreed to. After all, it was proposed from the Government benches. It was supported by hon. Members of all parties. I should have thought that it was an Amendment worthy of being agreed to. We are now told that this must all be done by private legislation. Provided that we can have an assurance that the Government will give a fair wind to such private legislation and that it will be legislation which will enable the Corporation to continue in office, we on this side would not press the Amendment but will hope that the matter will be dealt with in private legislation.
Mr. MacDermot: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to speak again. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides for their reception of the suggestion which I have made as to how this matter might be dealt with. It is correct, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said in his intervention, that it was made clear, both in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the other House before the Recess, that this was a matter which could and should be dealt with by private legislation. The proposal which I have put forward today, I wish to make clear, is purely a personal proposal of my own as a result of the discussions which I have had with quite a large number of people in recent weeks about this problem. I saw the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). I also had a useful discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is the Member of Parliament for the area concerned, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) who, by reason of her office, is somewhat silenced but who I know takes a keen interest in this matter and has been very helpful to me. I am very glad to see her here during this debate.
1554
I have also discussed the problem with representatives of both the two sides in the recent dispute—if that is the right word to use—about the question of enfranchisement in Letchworth. I have put forward the suggestion that I have in the hope and belief that we may end the somewhat divisive effect which this Bill has so far had upon Letchworth and restore the unity which I am sure everyone would agree is in the best interests of Letchworth Garden City.
If I can seek to make clearer the points that I have not made clear enough in my proposal, firstly I am not suggesting—it is entirely a matter for Letchworth—that I see any reason why Letchworth Corporation should cease or should destroy itself, as the hon. Member put it. I am merely suggesting that the freehold of the land should be transferred to the council. After all, this has already been done in respect of a large part of the estate, namely, the part where there are rack rent tenants. This has not destroyed either the unity or the character of the estate. If it was agreed between the corporation, the council and the citizens of Letchworth that that was the best solution, I see no reason why the corporation should not continue to manage the estate, I suppose legally acting as agents for the council but continuing in practice to manage, as it has done, hitherto.
My reference to Clause 19 was not to suggest that an application should be made as a fiction in order to gain time, assuming that enfranchisement does take place. I would imagine that it would be necessary for Letchworth to have a Clause 19 scheme. Apart from anything else, I see no other way by which the enfranchised leaseholders would contribute, as I imagine they would all agree they should do in the future, to the cost of the common amenities from which they will continue to derive benefit. That can be provided for under the Clause 19 scheme. I was assuming that, on any basis, there would be such an application. I was merely pointing out that because of the standstill effect of such an application, there would be some time. The suggestion I made was not one which would be defeated immediately by an application taken by the

1555
leaseholders the moment the Bill came into effect.
I turn, therefore, to the questions that I was asked as to the Government's position. Of course, there can be no question of Government initiative in this matter. The initiative must come from Letchworth, and no one is committed to the proposal that I have put forward, as I said, personally in my own name. None of the people I have seen are committed to it. From the conversations I have had with some of them, it is my belief that it might prove a basis for agreement, and I hope it will.
Naturally, if it does, I shall continue to give it as good a wind as I can and such help as I can, and I may say that I would not have put it forward to the House today if, on the first consideration of it that has been possible within the Department, it was thought by the Department that there were any inherent obstacles to the solution on these lines. If I can personally be of any assistance in the matter I shall be very glad to be so. I cannot commit the Government in advance, but I can offer my own personal good will in the matter and I certaintly do that.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(MEANING OF "LONG TENANCY".)
Lords Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 26, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fifty".
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it might be convenient if with this Amendment we take Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 which are in identical terms, in page 5, lines 7 and 14. They all deal with the same point.
Mr. Speaker: Not Amendment No. 8?
Mrs. White: It has been suggested that Amendment No. 8 might come more comfortably with Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 9.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has pro-posed that Nos. 4, 6 and 10 should be taken together. I have no objection if that is the will of the House.
Mr. Graham Page: Like you, Mr. Speaker, I thought that Amendment No. 8 would come with these Amendments rather than with Nos. 5, 7 and 9.
Mrs. White: If I might put the difficulty in which we are placed, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a later point at which I have to move an Amendment to No. 8, which is not at this moment. I consulted the Table about this, and I was told that the Amendment to Amendment No. 8 which brings in the period of 21 years should be moved at a later point.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think we should make heavy weather about this. It is just a matter of convenience. We will take Nos. 4, 6 and 10 together, as the hon. Lady suggests.
Mrs. White: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The point on which we ask the House to disagree with their Lordships is that they are attempting to insert a term of 50 years for the main provisions of the Bill instead of the term of 21 years. This is not the first time that this

1557
attempt has been made. When we previously discussed the matter in Committee and on Report, it was first of all suggested that the term should be 90 years and then 50 years. We have really rehearsed all the arguments at length. I would find it rather difficult to say anything fresh. I frankly doubt whether other hon. Members will be able to say anything new either, although I know that they may try.
This is one of the basic disagreements between us, but we have been able to ground our propositions firmly on precedent, which we would have supposed would appeal to the Opposition with their regard for tradition. In fact, we can go back to the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920, which has the term of 21 years; the Law of Property Act on which I am told Lord Birkenhead made a powerful speech on this matter; and far more recently and perhaps more cogently because it will be within the direct experience of a number of hon. Members, we have the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act which was the product of the party opposite. I served during the Committee stage of that Measure. The arguments there were all in favour of taking 21 years as the dividing line between a short and a long lease.
We appreciate that hon. Members opposite hold a different view on the question, but we believe that, for practical advantages, we should stick to the division between short and long leases which they themselves adopted in their 1954 Act. I do not imagine that we should gain very much in wisdom if we went again into the arguments which have been generously rehearsed at all stages and in both Houses. I hope, therefore, that the House will disagree with their Lordships in these Amendments.
Mr. Hugh Rossi: The discussions both here and in another place on how long is a long lease recall to my mind a film which I saw many years ago in which a rather improbable schoolmaster by the name of Will Hay was involved with an impossible schoolboy named William Moffat in a never-ending dialogue about how long was a piece of string.
1558
The Government have been at great pains throughout to prove that their piece of string is at least 21 years long. If one compares a 21-year lease with a lease for one year, three years, or even for five or seven years, it can be said that 21 years is a long lease. However, if one compares a 21-year lease with a lease for 99 years, the normal ground rent lease with which the Bill was originally concerned, or a lease for 999 years, it is seen to be by no means long. When one compares it with a freehold, the largest interest which can be owned in land, which lawyers call a fee simple absolute—absolute, that is, in time—one is comparing 21 years with infinity. In these circumstances, how can one say that 21 years is "long", when we are giving, or seeking to give, the owner of that interest the right to acquire an interest which continues in infinity?
The Government have overlooked that, in the apparently absurd conundrum about Will Hay's piece of string, there lies a truth of logic, that "long" is a relative term. Hence, a 21-year lease may be a long lease for some purposes but not for others.
The right hon. Lady has reproduced the argument which we heard in Committee and on Report, and which was heard in another place, that a 21-year lease is termed a long lease by reference to precedent. We have been referred to the 1920 Act and the 1954 Act. But for what purposes was a 21-year lease considered long in that context? Secondly, if it was long in that context, is it necessarily long in the context with which we are here concerned? Following precedent slavishly in this way, without realising that "long" is a relative term, the Government have led themselves into an absurd situation.
In the 1920 Rent Act, Parliament was concerned to deal with a certain situation and to give security of tenure to occupiers or tenants of residential premises who faced eviction at the termination of their interests in social conditions which made it well nigh impossible for them to acquire other accommodation on equal terms. It was thought necessary to give protection to tenants in that position. But it was felt at that time that tenants of 21-year leases did not require that particular protection, possibly because 21 years was sufficiently long for most residential purposes and for the purpose of

1559
keeping a pool of housing available, possibly because leases for 21 years were given normally for the quality and expensive type of property of which there was no shortage, possibly because it was felt in 1920 that in 21 years social conditions might well have changed and emergency legislation—Rent Act legislation is emergency legislation—then being brought in would no longer apply. For these reasons, 21-year leases, then in the Act for the purposes of definition called long leases, were excluded. It was done for those reasons and for no other.
In 1954, the Government of the day felt that leases which were excluded by the earlier Act of 1920 needed some form of protection, and they referred to long leases, going back to the 1920 definition, in saying what was the subject matter of the 1954 Act.
Leases for 21 years or more were called long leases for specific purposes, and these purposes do not apply here. We are considering other matters entirely. We are considering the right of the owner of a limited interest in land to acquire the absolute interest in land. If one looks at the White Paper, the position in which the Government put themselves is seen patently to be even more absurd. The whole basis of this legislation is that the land belongs to the freeholder and the buildings belong to the leaseholder. But how can this be said in regard to a term as short as 21 years? How can the Government say that, when the freeholder and the leaseholder originally entered into the arrangement between them, they thought that the leaseholder would be acquiring the building for the remainder of its useful life? What tenant would have entered into a 21-year lease—this is the kernel of the matter—on the basis that he was paying for the building, paying a premium sufficiently large to justify his acquiring the building, or, still less, entering into a building lease? What tenant would have entered into a lease for 21 years, covenanting to put a building upon the land? Clearly, it cannot be right. If one adopts the Government's premise, that the land belongs to the freeholder and the building belongs to the leaseholder, one cannot apply it to a 21-year lease.
The position becomes even more absurd in relation to the extension Clauses of the Bill. We now say that the owner of
1560
a 21-year lease can turn it into a 50-year lease. This is patently absurd, and it has never been within the contemplation of the leasehold reformers through the past decades. Their problem was the lease for 99 years and more. This has been the problem with which all leasehold reformers have been concerned. Yet the Government now make complete nonsense of the situation.
In Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends proposed that the correct definition for a long lease was one of 90 years. I did not agree with that view, but someone has to draw the line somewhere. The definition is to be found in our Income Tax laws. The Income Tax authorities have for many years regarded leases of 50 years or more as long leases.
6.30 p.m.
Where a premium has been paid on the creation of a lease of less than 50 years, Income Tax is not payable on the capital sum because it is regarded as payment of the rent in advance. Precise thought was given to the nature of the arrangement between the landlord and the tenant, to the question of who was paying for the building, and whether the tax should fall on the capital sum—whether it represented a payment for the building or merely an advance payment of rent. The Inland Revenue authorities concluded that from the very nature of the transaction a lease of 50 years or more was a long lease and that with a shorter lease the tenant had no interest whatever in the building.
Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to consider the absurd situation in which the Government are placing themselves by defining a long lease as one of 21 years. On the basis of their own premise for enfranchisement—the question of who owns the building and who owns the land—their position is complete nonsense. It is also nonsense for the other reasons I have given and for those which prompted their noble Lordships to amend the Bill as they did.
Mr. David Mitchell: I am particularly glad that the new Minister has joined us during this debate, because of his considerable experience in financial matters at the Treasury. I very much hope that he will reply to the debate, because one aspect concerns the Treasury and I hope that he will give the House his advice on it.

1561
The Government have invented the principle that the land belongs to the landlord and the bricks and mortar to the tenant. But if we accept that premise, surely it does not apply to a lease as short as 22 years, as proposed in the Bill? The Lords Amendment seeks to increase the period to 50 years. I particularly draw the attention of the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury to leases granted for a premium, which are not long leases in the ordinary meaning of the word, but fall within the scope of the Bill as it is now drafted.
I have in mind particularly the case where somebody has done nothing more nor less than to pay the ordinary rack rent in advance in a lump sum, which is very often to the advantage of the tenant as well as the landlord. I could give examples where the landlord and tenant have discussed a new lease and the landlord has asked, "Would you rather have a running rent or pay a premium and your rent in advance in a lump sum?" Because he pays less in total by paying in advance, the tenant often chooses to do so. He is then secure in old age and there will be no alteration in the rent with rising costs and so on.
It can be seen that there are many advantages to the tenant. This is recognised in the Income Tax Acts, which state that a premium paid on a lease of under 50 years shall be treated as income in the hands of the landlord. If it is so treated in the Income Tax laws, how can it be different under this legislation? If it is nothing but rent in advance, how can one say that the bricks and mortar belong to the tenant? He has not bought them any more than I have bought a house if I rent it for seven or 10 years.
The Minister must recognise that that argument is entirely logical. In our financial debates he has given us clear, concise and logical answers to the many questions put to him and I hope that he will give us his advice now. But I doubt whether he can find ways to defend what was put in the Bill by his colleague, the ex-Minister, who no longer steers it through the House. It is the most extraordinary basis of legislation.
I consulted one of the leading estate agents and valuers in the South of England on the question of whether premium
1562
leases are of major importance. He thinks that about 45 per cent. of the leases granted in London and the Home Counties in the past 25 years have been in the form of a premium and rack rent paid in advance. If that is so, we are dealing with a substantial number of people who will be put in a position which they never dreamt of being in when they took the lease and paid the rent in advance for 22 or 30 years. They will suddenly find that they are being made a gift of three-quarters of the value of the property, which they never intended to get and was not a basis of the contract at the start.
This is a matter of grave importance to the House, for a mark of a free society is that people are protected by law from other citizens acquiring their property except on fair and proper terms of compensation. This legislation operates against the sense of decency and fair play. The whole basis of contracts entered into for 25 years will be upset by the legislation, which will enable one private citizen compulsorily to purchase another's property for less than the fair market value.
I represent Basingstoke, which is an expanding town. An immense amount of compulsory purchase of other people's property—not by one citizen, but by the community—is involved in that expansion. There are many places where one desperately would not wish to see the compulsory purchases go through for personal reasons, such as where elderly people are involved. That is bad enough, but why will the Bill enable a private citizen compulsorily to purchase on unfair terms? We had a tragedy in Basingstoke, about which many local people are very worried—the case of an elderly man for whom the terms of compensation were so unfair that he committed suicide.
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Member is getting away from the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Mitchell: I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to show that immense personal hardship is created where there are unfair terms of compensation. Unless the Lords Amendment is accepted there is a grave danger of the House enacting that one citizen can compulsorily purchase another's property for unfair compensation, and that is what I believe is so deplorable.

1563
I sincerely hope that we have the benefit of the advice of the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury in this matter. I am sure that he cannot defend applying one law at the Treasury for Income Tax and another for the citizen, in the way that we see in the Bill.
Mr. Costain: The case has been made so well by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) that I shall narrowly restrict my remarks. I wish to emphasise particularly the question of the people concerned with 21-year leases. Many people accept the principle that if a person puts a house on land he has some right to it, but people do not put it on land on a 21-year lease.
How the Government have arrived at the figure of 21 we do not understand. When I learned of the appointment of the new Minister I rejoiced to think that we should get some sense into this legislation. All through the Finance Bill my hon. Friends have made the point about the 50 years. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of another period of 50 years, when we debated the Capital Gains Tax. Does he recall that 50 years was then accepted as a long asset?
Why do we have a different term for a long-term asset and a short-term asset in every Bill which comes before the House? We do not expect much consistency from the present Government on policy, but they ought at least to make it simple from the point of view of administration. Perhaps we may have clearly explained why 21 years has been chosen. It is normally after 21 years that a person becomes of age, but there is no question here of a house becoming of age. Why do not the Government adopt the 50-year period accepted in the Finance Bill?
Mr. Graham Page: If the Lords Amendment is rejected it means that a tenant with a lease for 21 years and one day has a right to acquire the freehold of the house in which he lives, the bricks and mortar, for nothing, and that is ridiculous. It blows up the Government White Paper on leasehold reform and blows up the Government's theories and philosophies about the tenant having built the house, as my hon. Friends the
1564
Members for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) have so clearly said.
"Long lease" or "short lease" or "ground lease" is not a lawyer's term now. If one asks any layman what he thinks is a ground lease he will say that it is one for 99 years. He would not think that a 21-year lease was a ground lease.
Mr. MacDermot: What about the 1954 Act?
Mr. Page: I will come to the 1954 Act in a moment as the hon. and learned Gentleman has commented on it. We compromised with the Government on this and put forward 50 years instead of 99 years, and this is well supported by Income Tax law and even by the Bill itself. The Bill recognises that the tenant should be given an extended lease of 50 years. The tenant is being given a long lease if he likes instead of his freehold. Why not offer him 21 years and say "There is your long lease."? The Bill has recognised that a long lease is one of 50 years, and we accepted that in the earlier stages, and that was inserted in the Bill in another place.
I challenge the Government to say where in the country there is an unrenewable ground lease for 21 years. I know that leases are granted in South Wales for 21 years, but they are renewable leases. I know of no unrenewable, properly called, ground lease for 21 years. The difficulty is coupled with the definition of low rent in a later Clause, and together with that it will certainly bring within the net some, and perhaps many, houses which were let at a market rent 21 years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also showed how it will bring within the net premium leases over 21 years. These leases of just over 21 years granted for a premium were transactions properly made to escape the Rent Act. It was perfectly permissible by law—until this Bill becomes law—for that to be done. It was done to escape the premium prohibition for controlled or regulated property. So there will be many cases in which merely because the landlord and the tenant arranged their affairs within the law so that a premium was paid and then a rack rent will now find

1565
that it will be turned into a ground lease and the tenant will be entitled to have his bricks and mortar without payment. I cannot see the Government's intention. What is behind it? Do they want to stop avoidance of the Rent Acts? That is not necessary. It is done in a later Clause in the Bill. There seems to be no purpose in this if the Government still hold to the principles set forth in the White Paper.
Just now the Minister interrupted, "What about the 1954 Act?" My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey showed clearly that the 1954 Act was for the purpose of rent restriction and control and that it was repeating the 1920 provisions. The purpose was wholly different. The purpose of the 1954 Act was to let a tenant remain in the property at a rack rent. The purpose of the 1954 Act was not to give him the house for no payment at all. So the position is wholly different.
It seems pure obstinacy on the part of the Government to hold to the period of 21 years when they have put before the House no reason at all within their principles of leasehold enfranchisement why they should define a long lease as being one over 21 years.
6.45 p.m.
Mrs. White: We have had an interesting and pleasant debate, and, particularly an amusing illustration was given by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about the length of a piece of string.
But I do not think that my expectations have been falsified. I said at the outset that I doubted whether we should tonight hear any arguments different in substance from those previously rehearsed. This is a matter on which we are simply at variance.
Various arguments have been put forward, but I do not think that on this occasion we ought to debate the 1920 Act or the 1954 Act. We have enough to do to try to get this Bill through. Therefore, I do not feel disposed to follow the very interesting historical points adduced by the hon. Member for Hornsey.
Nor do I think we ought to re-debate the various Finance Bills dealing with the Income Tax law on this matter. I
1566
think that there were good reasons at one time which made the Revenue think that 50 years would be useful from its point of view. That was before the Capital Gains Tax. I do not think that this is the moment to go into all the arguments about Income Tax.
Mr. Graham Page: Why not?
Mrs. White: Because we are discussing something else. I think that we could go on chopping logic and ill logic about this, but I do not feel that we add very much to the store of wisdom by so doing.
I would remind the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), who was eloquent about premium leases, that there are other restrictions in the Bill which very much limit the number of those premium leases which could be brought within the scope of the Bill. For example, the restoration of the rateable value, in the carrying out of which I had some hand at an earlier stage, has a limiting effect for reasons that I gave then which I thought were conclusive.
We appreciate that the Opposition do not agree with us on this. They have their views and we have ours. I do not feel that we should get any clearer point than we did at the beginning if we went into the matter any further.
Mr. David Mitchell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. White: I do not want to enter into further arguments because I think that we have already shown conclusively that we wish to disagree with the Lords on this point.
Mr. David Mitchell: It is the most extraordinary thing that I have ever heard in the House for the Minister to say, "I do not agree with the hon. Member, but I am not going to tell him why and not give him the basis of my argument because I do not think that this is the time and place to do so. "If this is not the time and place to answer the arguments which have been brought forward, where is the right time and place?
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 96.

Division No. 491.]

AYES

[5.22 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Binns, John

Alldritt, Walter

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Bishop, E. S.

Allen, Scholefield

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Blackburn, F.

Anderson, Donald

Barnett, Joel

Boardman, H.

Archer, Peter

Beaney, Alan

Booth, Albert

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Boston, Terence

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hooson, Emlyn

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Horner, John

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Brooks, Edwin

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pavitt, Laurence

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Buchan, Norman

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Howie, W.

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Cant, R. B.

Hoy, James

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Huckfield, Leslie

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Coe, Denis

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Coleman, Donald

Hunter, Adam

Probert, Arthur

Conlan, Bernard

Hynd, John

Rankin, John

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Crawshaw, Richard

Janner, Sir Barnett

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jeger, George (Coole)

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Ryan, John

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sheldon, Robert

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Leadbitter, Ted

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Ledger, Ron

Silverman, Sydney (Neison)

Dempsey, James

Lee, John (Reading)

Skeffington, Arthur

Dewar, Donald

Lestor, Miss Joan

Slater, Joseph

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Small, William

Dickens, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Snow, Julian

Dobson, Ray

Lipton, Marcus

Spriggs, Leslie

Doig, Peter

Lubbock, Eric

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Dunnett, Jack

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

MacDermot, Niall

Swain, Thomas

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Macdonald, A. H.

Symonds, J. B.

Edelman, Maurice

McGuire, Michael

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Tinn, James

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Mackie, John

Tornney, Frank

Ellis, John

Mackintosh, John P.

Urwin, T. W.

Ensor, David

Maclennan, Robert

Varley, Eric G.

Finch, Harold

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

Wallace, George

Ford, Ben

Manuel, Archie

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Fowler, Gerry

Mapp, Charles

Weitzman, David

Freeson, Reginald

Marquand, David

Wellbeloved, James

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mayhew, Christopher

Whitaker, Ben

Gardner, Tony

Mendelson, J. J.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Garrett, W. E.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilkins, W. A.

Gourlay, Harry

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Gregory, Arnold

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Molloy, William

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Neal, Harold

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Winnick, David

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

O'Malley, Brian

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Orme, Stanley

Winterbottom, R. E.

Hamling, William

Oswald, Thomas

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Hannan, William

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Woof, Robert

Harper, Joseph

Padley, Walter

Yates, Victor

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Haseldine, Norman

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hilton, W. S.

Park, Trevor

Mr. Neil McBride and

Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

NOES

Allason, James (Hernel Hempstead)

Cordle, John

Foster, Sir John

Astor, John

Costain, A. P.

Gibson-Watt, David

Awdry, Daniel

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Goodhew, Victor

Balniel, Lord

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Grant-Ferris, R.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gresham Cooke, R.

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Dance, James

Grieve, Percy

Blaker, Peter

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Gurden, Harold

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Doughty, Charles

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Eden, Sir John

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Bruce-Cardyne, J.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Campbell, Gordon

Errington, Sir Eric

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Channon, H. P. G.

Farr, John

Hawkins, Paul

Cooke, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Hay, John

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Fortescue, Tim

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

1540

1541

Heath, Art. Hn. Edward

Maude, Angus

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Heseltine, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Hiley, Joseph

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

Royle, Anthony

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Holland, Philip

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Hordern, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)

Hornby, Richard

Monro, Hector

Smith, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Montgomery, Fergus

Stodart, Anthony

Hunt, John

More, Jasper

Summers, Sir Spencer

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Tapsell, Peter

Iremonger, T. L.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Murton, Oscar

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Jopling, Michael

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Kershaw, Anthony

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Kimball, Marcus

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wall, Patrick

Kitson, Timothy

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Weatherill, Bernard

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Webster, David

Lane, David

Peyton, John

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Pink, R. Bonner

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Pounder, Rafton

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Worsley, Marcus

Loveys, W. H.

Prior, J. M. L.

Younger, Hn. George

McMaster, Stanley

Pym, Francis

Maddan, Martin

Quennell, Miss J. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Maginnis, John E.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Mr. David Mitchell and

Mr. Anthony Grant.

Division No. 492.]

AYES

[6.50 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gourlay, Harry

Padley, Walter

Alldritt, Walter

Gregory, Arnold

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Allen., Scholefield

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Anderson, Donald

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Park, Trevor

Archer, Peter

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Beaney, Alan

Hamling, William

Pentland, Norman

Bidwell, Sydney

Harper, Joseph

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Binns, John

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Blackburn, F.

Haseldine, Norman

Price, William (Rugby)

Booth, Albert

Hilton, W. S.

Probert, Arthur

Boston, Terence

Hooson, Emlyn

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Horner, John

Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Brooks, Edwin

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Ryan, John

Buchan, Norman

Huckfield, Leslie

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Sheldon, Robert

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Chapman, Donald

Hunter, Adam

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Coe, Denis

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Coleman, Donald

Janner, Sir Barnett

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Conlan, Bernard

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&st.P'cras, S.)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Skeffington, Arthur

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Slater, Joseph

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Small, William

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Spriggs, Leslie

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Leadbitter, Ted

Swain, Thomas

Dalyell, Tam

Lestor, Miss Joan

Symonds, J. B.

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Lipton, Marcus

Tinn, James

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Loughlin, Charles

Tomney, Frank

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

McBride, Neil

Urwin, T. W.

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

MacDermot, Niall

Varley, Eric G.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Macdonald, A. H.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

McGuire, Michael

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Dempsey, James

Maclennan, Robert

Wallace, George

Dewar, Donald

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Dickens, James

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Weitzman, David

Dobson, Ray

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

Wellbeloved, James

Doig, Peter

Manuel, Archie

White, Mrs. Eirene

Dunnett, Jack

Mapp, Charles

Whitlock, William

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Marquand, David

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Edelman, Maurice

Mellish, Robert

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mendelson, J. J.

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ellis, John

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Ensor, David

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Woof, Robert

Finch, Harold

Neal, Harold

Yates, Victor

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Norwood, Christopher

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

O'Malley, Brian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Galpern, Sir Myer

Orme, Stanley

Mr. W. Howie and

Gardner, Tony

Oswald, Thomas

Mr. Harold Walker.

Garrett, W. E.

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Dance, James

Heseltine, Michael

Astor, John

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hiley, Joseph

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Doughty, Charles

Holland, Philip

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hordern, Peter

Body, Richard

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Hornby, Richard

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Errington, Sir Eric

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-col.Sir Walter

Farr, John

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Jopling, Michael

Bullus, Sir Eric

Foster, Sir John

Kershaw, Anthony

Channon, H. P. G.

Gibson-Watt, David

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Clegg, Walter

Grant, Anthony

Lane, David

Cooke, Robert

Grant-Ferris, R.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Grieve, Percy

Loveys, W. H.

Cordle, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

McMaster, Stanley

Costain, A. P.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Maddan, Martin

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maginnis, John E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Hawkins, Paul

Maude, Angus

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Hay, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

1568

1569

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Pink, R. Bonner

Summers, Sir Spencer

Montgomery, Fergus

Pounder, Rafton

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

More, Jasper

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Prior, J. M. L.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Pym, Francis

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Murton, Oscar

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Ward, Dame Irene

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Weatherill, Bernard

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Webster, David

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Worsley, Marcus

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Younger, Hn. George

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)

Percival, Ian

Smith, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Peyton, John

Stodart, Anthony

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 5, line 5, leave out from "Where" to "been" in line 6, and insert "a tenancy is or has".
Read a second time.
Mr. Allason: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after 'tenancy', to insert:
'(not being a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply)'.
Mr. Walter Clegg: I, too, welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State to the field of land law. I hope that he does not find the transition one from the works of Enid Blyton to the works of Sigmund Freud in one fell swoop.
I should also pay tribute to the dear departed—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). He was the first Minister with whom I crossed swords in the House and was always courteous. At the same time he was, I think, one of the most Socialist of all the Ministers and he met the end that all Socialist Ministers must inevitably meet—the chop.
In another place Lord Hughes moved this Amendment because the original drafting of the subsection was inelegant. I suppose that if a man is to lose his land he might as well lose it elegantly as inelegantly. But there is a point of some seriousness which crops up in this Clause which this Amendment is designed to meet. This arises from the use of the words about "the obligation" of the landlord to renew the lease. It is not only a covenant but an obligation. Does the word "obligation" in this context mean that it could be a statutory obligation? What comes to our minds is that by Statute landlords have to prolong a tenancy not purely by covenant. If one takes the case under the Rent Act the landlord has to extend the tenancy. When the tenant dies the new tenancy has to be
1570
extended to a member of the family. We should like some reassurance that this Amendment and the Clause with which it is concerned does not mean that Rent Act properties will be included. That is why we put down the Amendment. It does not seem clear. The word "obligation" is a somewhat unusual word to use in this context and I would ask the Minister, if he can, to give us some reassurance on this and, if he cannot reassure us, to accept the Amendment.
Mrs. White: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) for putting this point. I hope that I can reassure him, because it is not just this Clause that one has to take into account, but the Clause which provides for the low rent. The definitions for this purpose really eliminate the point which seems to be worrying him. As I understand it, if one takes the low rent Clause as well, then by definition a tenancy to which the Rent Act applies must be at a rent exceeding two-thirds of the rate-able value as at 23rd March, 1965. Therefore, by that definition, and in a subsequent Clause, the point which the hon. Member seems to be concerned about is covered. It means that those which come under the Rent Act provisions could not by definition come under this one.
Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that is a satisfactory answer. This Clause provides for a lease, originally perhaps for a short period of a week, a month or a year, being a lease which is renewable by the tenant and has been renewed for a period over 21 years. It then becomes a long lease provided that it is at a low rent and the tenant will have the right to enfranchise. This happens only if there is a covenant or an obligation by the landlord to renew.
Suppose that property within the area of controlled property was let 22 years ago. It may well be that its rent then

1571
and perhaps now is less than the two-thirds required to bring it outside the Act. The landlord has been under an obligation throughout the 22 years to renew—not an obligation under the lease or tenancy itself, but an obligation by Statute. That is the word which is used in this Clause: that if there is a covenant or obligation for renewal and the lease has been renewed for a period over 21 years then it is treated as a long lease. It would be ridiculous to think that it is the intention of the Act that a controlled tenant who has been in occupation for 21 years and one day should be entitled to enfranchise under this Act merely because there was a statutory obligation on the landlord to continue that tenancy.
There may be very few tenancies which come under this provision, but, even if there are a few, surely it was not intended to bring them into the net of this Bill, and provision should be made to exclude them. I do not think that they are excluded by any other provision of the Bill. They are included by the use of the word "obligation", and the Amendment which we have suggested merely puts that right. It puts words in after "tenancy" which would exclude the sort of case which I have tried to describe.
Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps I can assist the House on this somewhat technical legal point which has been raised. As I understand it, the purpose of the Amend-
ment is to exclude from these provisions any tenancy to which the Rent Act applies and to see that there would not be enfranchisement in any such case.
As the Minister of State, Welsh Office, pointed out, that problem cannot arise, because, in order for the Rent Act to apply to a tenancy, it must be at a rent exceeding two-thirds of the rateable value at the appropriate date in March, 1965. Any tenancy which complies with that and, therefore, from that point of view, could be within the Rent Act, is excluded from the provisions of this Bill by the requirement in Clause 4 that the rent must be less than two-thirds of the rateable value in order to qualify as a low rent. Therefore, I do not see how the problem can arise.
Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, there is the case, examples of which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) gave when we were discussing the last Amendment, where there might have been a premium lease over 21 years thereby reducing the rack rent to a figure below the two-thirds.
Mr. MacDermot: In that case the Rent Act would not apply.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 169.

Division No. 493.]

AYES

[7.8 p.m.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Astor, John

Hawkins, Paul

Percival, Ian

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Hay, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Body, Richard

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Pounder, Rafton

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Heseltine, Michael

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Hiley, Joseph

Prior, J. M. L.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Pym, Francis

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hordern, Peter

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Channon, H. P. G.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Clegg, Walter

Jennings, J. c. (Burton)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Cooke, Robert

Kitson, Timothy

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Cordle, John

Lane, David

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Costain, A. P.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Loveys, W. H.

Smith, John

Cunningham, Sir Knox

McMaster, Stanley

Stodart, Anthony

Dalkeith, Earl of

Maddan, Martin

Summers, Sir Spencer

Dance, James

Maginnis, John E.

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Maude, Angus

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Doughty, Charles

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Ward, Dame Irene

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Weatherill, Bernard

Errington, Sir Eric

Montgomery, Fergus

Webster, David

Farr, John

More, Jasper

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Younger, Hn. George

Foster, Sir John

Murton, Oscar

Gibson-Watt, David

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grant-Ferris, R.

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Mr. Anthony Grant and

Grieve, Percy

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

NOES

Alldritt, Walter

Gourlay, Harry

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Allen, Scholefield

Gregory, Arnold

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Anderson, Donald

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Park, Trevor

Archer, Peter

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Pavitt, Laurence

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Pentland, Norman

Beaney, Alan

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hamling, William

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Binns, John

Harper, Joseph

Price, William (Rugby)

Blackburn, F.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Probert, Arthur

Boardman, H.

Haseldine, Norman

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Booth, Albert

Hilton, W. S.

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Boston, Terence

Hooson, Emlyn

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur

Horner, John

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Ryan, John

Brooks, Edwin

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Huckfield, Leslie

Sheldon, Robert

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hunter, Adam

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Chapman, Donald

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Coe, Denis

Janner, Sir Barnett

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Coleman, Donald

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)

Skeffington, Arthur

Conlan, Bernard

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Slater, Joseph

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Small, William

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Spriggs, Leslie

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

Swain, Thomas

Dalyell, Tam

Leadbitter, Ted

Symonds, J. B.

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Ledger, Ron

Tinn, James

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lester, Miss Joan

Tomney, Frank

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lipton, Marcus

Urwin, T. W.

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Loughtin, Charles

Varley, Eric G.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McBride, Neil

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

MacDermot, Niall

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Macdonald, A. H.

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Dempsey, James

McGuire, Michael

Wallace, George

Dewar, Donald

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Dickens, James

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Weitzman, David

Dobson, Ray

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

Wellbeloved, James

Doig, Peter

Manuel, Archie

White, Mrs. Eirene

Dunnett, Jack

Mapp, Charles

Whitlock, William

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Marquand, David

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Edelman, Maurice

Mellish, Robert

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mendelson, J. J.

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ellis, John

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Ensor, David

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Neal, Harold

Woof, Robert

Finch, Harold

Norwood, Christopher

Yates, Victor

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

O'Malley, Brian

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Orme, Stanley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galpern, Sir Myer

Oswald, Thomas

Mr. W. Howie and

Gardner, Tony

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Mr. Harold Walker.

Garrett, W. E.

Padley, Walter

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if with this we also consider Lords Amendments No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9, because, although we have subsequently to deal with Lords Amendment No. 8, this group of Amendments is a group of drafting Amendments. We hope that the House will agree that they improve Clause 3(4) which, because of the various Amendments made at various times, in its present form now greatly distresses the draftsmen, because, as they point out, references to the future are
1574
made in the pluperfect tense. These Amendments are therefore primarily grammatical. I shall later move the Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 8 to bring it into line with what has been decided about the period of years.
Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that we should discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 with this in order to solve the problem of the imperfect pluperfect tenses, but that we shall have to consider an Amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 8 when we come to it.
Sir John Foster: I do not need to disclose my interest in the grammatical point, but I do not understand

1575
Lords Amendment No. 7. We are asked to substitute "is or has" for "had", which would leave the provision reading:
"… the tenancy is or has once or more …"
I do not see how the wording fits. One cannot say that a tenancy is or has once or more renewed.
Mrs. White: The wording would be:
"is or has been once or more renewed."
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 7, disagreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 9, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 10, leave out "that" and insert "as to bring to more than fifty years", read a second time and amended, by leaving out the word "fifty" and inserting the word "twenty-one"—[Mrs. Eirene White],—instead thereof,—and, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 12, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 14, disagreed to.

Clause 2.—(MEANING OF "HOUSE" AND "HOUSE AND PREMISES", AND ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARY.)
Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 5, after first "minerals" insert "comprised in the tenancy".
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is really not more than a drafting Amendment. It is designed to ensure that in any reference to minerals the rights of a leaseholder under the Bill are confined to what is in the lease. I think this probably was the position before, but the insertion after the first "minerals" in line 5 of the words "comprised in the tenancy" makes it absolutely clear that if minerals are not in the agreement, even though they may be under the property, there is no question of the tenant acquiring any rights or any of the legal obligations which flow from that. I am
1556
sure the House will be glad to accept the Amendment.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4.—(MEANING OF LOW RENT.)
Lords Amendment No. 11: In page 5, line 41, leave out "and" and insert:
"Provided that a tenancy granted between the end of August 1939 and the beginning of April 1963 otherwise than by way of building lease (whether or not it is, by virtue of section 3(3) above, to be treated for other purposes as forming a single tenancy with a previous tenancy) shall not be regarded as a tenancy at a low rent if at the commencement of the tenancy the rent payable under the tenancy exceeded two-thirds of the letting value of the property (on the same terms)."
Read a second time.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Allason.
Mr. MacDermot Mr. MacDermot rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacDermot. Point of order.
Mr. MacDermot: I was proposing to move the Motion, not to raise a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me help the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have an Amendment which I have selected, the Amendment to line 1. We must take Amendments to the Lords Amendment before we decide what we
1576
are to do about the Lords Amendment itself.
Mr. Allason: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, leave out from 'granted' to 'otherwise' in line 2.
It might be convenient if we could discuss the other Amendments which you have selected to be discussed, which I understand to be the two Amendments to line 7, in line 7, after 'tenancy', insert 'was equal to or'; and, in line 7, leave out from 'the' to end of line 8 and insert
'the rateable value of the property on the first day of the term'.
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected that for separate debate but I have suggested that we discuss with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the second Amendment to line 7.
Mr. Allason: It would be best to took at the situation presented to us by the Lords Amendment before getting to the effect of the Amendment which I am moving, and the subsequent Amendment which we are discussing with it. In the course of the Bill we have pressed very consistently that there is a flaw in the definition in the Bill of ground rent as being two-thirds of the current rateable value, because it is liable to catch some genuine rack rents settled some time ago at a fairly low rent, but which now, owing to rising rateable values, will come to be defined as ground rents.
It cannot be the intention of the Government that what was once a genuine rack rent should now be defined as a ground rent. To give an example, we now have within the Bill, a rateable value limit for houses outside London of £200. Before 1963 that would have been roughly one-third. Rateable values went up by approximately three times. The rateable value before 1963 was about £70, which is the highest level of house outside London remaining in the Bill. If it was a rateable value of £70, that would be equivalent to a gross value of about £90.
But two-thirds of the current rateable value is £133. We would have the situation whereby the rack rent of a house, which some years ago had a certain gross value, which is not the letting value but is the district valuer's opinion of its letting value, would, under the definition of this Bill, become a ground rent if it

1577
was let for substantially more than that £133.
Clearly, the further one goes back the greater is the danger that a perfectly reasonable rack rent shall now be defined as a ground rent, because of the two-thirds valuation placed in the Bill. The Lords Amendment deals with these for the period from August, 1939 to April, 1963. It substitutes for this two-thirds current rateable value a new term, that is two-thirds of the letting value at the commencement of the lease.
I take it that it is intended to be at the commencement of the lease, because in the wording of the Lords Amendment it says:
"… if at the commencement of the tenancy the rent payable under the tenancy exceeded two-thirds of the letting value of the property (on the same terms)."
It is not at all clear that that means the letting value at the time when the tenancy was granted, but let us assume that it was that. This vastly improves matters, because for this period from 1939 to 1963, at least we get a different definition and there is less danger of the rack rent being misinterpreted as ground rent under the terms of the Bill. If we can discover the letting value at that time, quite clearly a lease of two-thirds of the letting value is unlikely to be a rack rent, unless the landlord is slightly off his head.
The earlier one goes back, the more likely it is that the rack rent will be low, and consequently will become confused with the ground rent now. It is not clear why this change should only operate from August, 1939 to April, 1963. Any lease granted before August, 1939, which is still existing, would tend to be in an even more anomalous position than those within the wartime and post-war period of leases.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the hon. Member to address the House against a background of sustained conversation.
Mr. Allason: Coming now to the Amendment. The first Amendment leaves out the dated periods so that the letting value is taken over the whole period as the method of determination. This is a fairly satisfactory solution, and I cannot see why it should not operate over the whole period instead of retaining the two-thirds rateable value provision for some other periods. The existence of two
1578
different definitions would only confuse the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
On the second Amendment, I go further in my criticism of letting value, to which I gave modified greeting, since it obviously improves the position. But the position could be much more improved by this Amendment. Instead of the letting value, we would take the rating value of the property at commencement of the lease. This known fact can be discovered simply, whereas the letting value in 1940 will be extremely difficult to discover and will be subect to much argument, with both sides employing surveyors to argue it. Rateable value will be firm and definite.
In addition, letting value varied during the war from day to day or from month to month. As the blitz increased or decreased so letting values changed. At some stages, one could not find anyone to occupy one's house and the letting value was virtually nothing. In other areas, the nice safe areas, the situation was exactly the opposite, with very high letting values. Therefore, letting value has considerable disadavantage as a basis for calculation; rateable value when the lease started is a much better proposition. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. We are grateful that they have taken a move in the right direction, but it is not a very wise move.
Mr. MacDermot: I am grateful for the general welcome which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) gave the Amendments to which these two Amendments are proposed. I also find it difficult to discuss these two Amendments except against the background of the Government Amendments. These Amendments are an attempt to meet a point which worried both sides in Committee and on Report. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) first drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the two-thirds rateable value rule could be unfair to some landlords in view of the practice in the immediate post-war years of granting rack rent tenancies for longer terms than 21 years.
Because of the decline in the value of money, some of those rack rent tenancies are now at rents less than two-thirds of the rateable value, following the revision of the rating system which took effect

1579
in 1963. All the evidence is that this practice began immediately after the war. It is not a continuing problem, partly because of the revision of the system and partly because the practice now is for anyone who grants a long lease on rack rent terms to include rent revision clauses in the agreement to ensure that he will not be caught as were some owners under those kinds of agreement.
It was not, of course, the intention of anyone who has been campaigning, as many of us have for many years, for leasehold enfranchisement that it should apply to rack rent tenancies. Consequently, when I found how both sides had been disturbed by this problem, I was anxious to solve it. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we have gone some way to meet the problem.
His two Amendments propose variations of our proposal. First, he does not want it confined to leases granted between August 1939 and the date when the new rating system came into force—1st April, 1963—but wants it to be at large. My answer to that is twofold. First, we have no evidence of any practice of granting leases of that kind, except starting in the immediate post-war years. We have allowed a margin of error here by going back to 1939, and, since we know of no practical reason for going back further, we are not inclined to, especially as we see a very good practical reason why we should not.
The hon. Gentleman himself said that it might be very difficult for a landlord to produce evidence of letting values in 1940, and I suggest that it would be even more difficult if the year were 1840, which might be the result of the Amendment. It might be argued that the rent of a tenancy granted in the last century was less than two-thirds of the letting value at the date of the grant. I confirm that that is the meaning of the words in the Amendment. That is the date which must be considered both to the letting value and to the actual rent under the agreement. This is a severely practical reason for going back no further.
The cut-off date of 1st April is necessary, anyway, to avoid a clash with the transitional provisions in Clause 35—certainly no later than 8th December, 1964. In any event, that was the date when the rating system was brought up
1580
to date and obviated the problem. There is also the practice of rent revision Clauses. On reflection, I think that the House will agree that a date limit to this special provision is wise.
Mr. Allason: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that if he accepted both Amendments, this difficulty would be obviated?
Mr. MacDermot: If the hon. Member will be patient, I will tell him a good reason why the House should not accept the second Amendment. It goes back to one of the solutions tried and probed and found wanting in Committee. When the House tried to solve this problem, the first thing was to see whether the rent under the agreement could be related to the rateable value at the time of the agreement instead of to the rateable value in 1963. The difficulty about that is that the rateable values in the period with which we are most concerned—the immediate post-war years—were 1939 rateable values. As the hon. Member will know from his experience, because we did not then have a unified rating system the result was that there were ludicrously low rating assessments in particular areas. It did not matter for one of those areas, because they secured the tone of the list in their own area and aimed at the same treatment for all lettings in the area.
One knows, and one need not repeat, the reasons why there was a temptation to value low. The fact is, however, that they were valued very low. I am assured that there are examples of genuine ground leases with ground rents of the order of £10 a year, which would be excluded if one took the current rateable value, because rateable values were as low as about £15. The suggested solution would, therefore, be quite unworkable and would exclude an enormous number of genuine ground leases.
It was for the same reason that we had to advise the rejection of a provision, which was written in at one stage in the other place, to take one-third instead of two-thirds of the rateable value. When we come to the other end of the time scale, we encounter the problem that genuine ground leases are created at the present time when the ground rent is more than one-third of the rateable value. Again, therefore, that would not give the right result.

1581
It was for those reasons that we put forward the Lords Amendments in this way. They will help to provide a workable solution to the problem, and I must advise the House to reject both Amendments to them.
Mr. Graham Page: This is an example of our difficulties in dealing with the Bill, which has been brought to the House only the day after Third Reading in another place when the Lords Amendment was introduced. The unfairness of including property of which the rent is as much as two-thirds of the rateable value or just under was mentioned on Second Reading in this House. It was debated in Committee and on Report and at each stage in another place.
Although the Minister of State has said that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were worried, they may have been worried from the back benches on the Government side but there appeared to be no worry about it until this stage from the Government Front Bench. We are, therefore, faced with trying to understand a difficult Amendment of this nature only a few hours after it was passed in another place yesterday.
I have tried to work out how the Lords Amendment would operate and what would be the effect of our Amendment to it. There are various permutations that can be used for examples, but to use figures is probably confusing. Two points are involved in the Amendments. By our Amendment to line 1 of the Lords Amendment, we say that if it is right for the Lords Amendment to be applied for the 1939–1963 period, it is right for it to be applied at all This should always be the alternative for the landlord if the property is near the margin of the rateable value limit. There will, of course, be occasions when it would be impossible for either party to prove one way or the other what was the letting value at any one time, what was the letting value on the first day of the term of the lease or, if it is a 99-year lease, the letting value in the last century. That could not be proved. Therefore, the alternative could not he used. That, however, is no reason why it should not be an alternative at all times.
1582
7.45 p.m.
I am puzzled by the Minister of State's remark that the Ministry has no evidence of a practice of rack rent leases for more than 21 years prior to the war. I do not know why the Ministry should have any evidence of it or how it could get evidence one way or the other. I am surprised to learn that there is no such evidence. I cannot think of any occasion in my practice when I have had one, but, equally, I cannot think that rack rent leases were extraordinary at that time. For scores of years, landlords and tenants have agreed between each other a premium as opposed to a rent, a rent as opposed to a premium. I am sure that this happened with residential property for many years before 1939.
The purpose of our Amendment to line 7 of the Lords Amendment is to return to rateable value instead of letting value but to return to it as it exists at the time when the lease is granted. This seems to be the most fair way of deciding what is a low rent. One is then looking at the intention of the parties when the lease was created. If it is possible to compare the ground rent with the rateable value at the time the lease was granted, one gets the intention of the parties as to whether it should be a lease at a low rent.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I have been following this part of the hon. Member's argument. Can he explain why he puts it that way? Surely, the Lords Amendment gives a considerable leeway between the true rack rent and the position which is covered by the Clause. It gives virtually one-third of the rack rent as a leeway. Surely, that is much safer than relying on a rateable value which may be purely artificial.
Mr. Page: That brings me to the point of asking what is meant by "letting value". It seems to me that we are still basing our calculations on rateable value, because I anticipate that what will be said to be rateable value is the gross value. That is merely worked out from the rateable value. Perhaps, however, it is better to deal with this when the Lords Amendment is being debated and I will ask the question then.
In putting forward our Amendment to substitute rateable value for letting value, it seemed to me to be a much

1583
fairer way as between the parties of ascertaining their intentions concerning the rent and whether they meant it to be a ground lease if we consider the rateable value at the time when the lease was granted.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. MacDermot: Are you inviting hon. Member's opposite to put formally the second of their Amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before we discuss the Lords Amendments themselves?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in line 7, of the Lords Amendment, is not selected. I understand that the hon. Member's third Amendment, also in line 7, has been discussed with the first Amendment. Therefore, I was not proposing to put it. The hon. Member's fourth Amendment, in line 8, of the Lords Amendment, is not selected. I therefore invite the Government to move a proposal with regard to Lords Amendment No.11.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. We understood from Mr. Speaker's statement about the Amendments that he had selected the second Opposition Amendment to this Lords Amendment; that is, the first Amendment in line 7. He said that the second Amendment in line 7 would be discussed with the Amendment in line 1. I understood that the first three Amendments were selected in that way, while the fourth was not.
Mr. MacDermot: I am not sure whether or not the hon. Gentleman was in the House, but I recall that when these Amendments were called, Mr. Speaker made it clear that he was selecting the second Amendment in line 7 for debate.
Mr. Allason: With my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I was in the House and understood Mr. Speaker to say that he would call the second Amendment in line 7, whereupon the Minister intervened to say that he surely meant the third Amendment.
Mr. MacDermot: At the time this question was asked of Mr. Speaker it was made clear that Mr. Speaker was selecting the second Amendment in line 7.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position seems clear. The first Amendment in line
1584
I has been disposed of. The first Amendment in line 7 is not selected. The second Amendment in line 7 has been discussed with the Amendment in line 1, and now falls. The Amendment in line 8 is not selected. I now invite the Government to move a Motion in regard to Lords Amendment No. 11.
Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would it be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 16?
Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I can deal with this Amendment briefly because we discussed the general effect of it and of the other Amendments being taken with it in our debate on the last Amendment. There appears to be general agreement on the desirability of the Amendment.
Only one point has not been clearly brought out. I wish to make it clear that the provision in this series of Amendments is something of which the landlord can, if he wishes, avail himself, but the initiative will have to lie with him and the onus of proof will lie upon him. In other words, it will not be necessary for enfranchising leaseholders to go to all the pains of trying to produce negative evidence to defeat this possibility—which would, of course, only be an exceptional case—and in such an exceptional case the evidence is likely to lie much more in the hands of the landlord than in those of the tenant. We therefore think it right, if the landlord wishes to avail himself of it, that the burden of proof in this matter should lie on him.
Mr. Allason: This shows the extreme difficulty in which one finds oneself when asked to consider Amendments of this kind at such short notice. Only a very short period of warning has been given to us and I have not had time to check through the procedure.
My recollection of the procedure under Clause 5 is that once a tenant has given notice to a landlord of his wish to have the freehold, he is entitled to work on the supposition that he will get it and that he is even entitled to assign his right.

1585
In other words, he can sell the freehold that will come to him.
This arrangement is highly unsatisfactory in the light of Amendment No. 14, with its proviso about when this process should start to operate. Surely it should work the other way; that if a landlord says, "I do not agree that your notice is valid because I shall claim that it is not a ground lease because of the proviso", then at that stage this fact should operate against the tenant. If not—if I am correct in what I believe is meant by Clause 5, Schedule 1 and the other provisions relating to this matter—the tenant can proceed on the basis that he will succeed.
This is a hopeless proposition, particularly if at a much later stage the landlord must provide all the proof. Obviously he cannot do that on the first day. It will take a considerable time before he is able to prove to the court or tribunal that it is not a ground lease. We have heard that there will be a considerable argument on this score and therefore, at the earliest stage, the proviso should operate so that a stop is put on the tenant acquiring the freehold—that is, until the matter has been sorted out.
Mr. Graham Page: I thought that we would be given an answer to our questions on this Amendment. In addition to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) there are some general matters which I must put before the House. We are told in the Amendment that the rent shall not exceed two-thirds. In Clause 4, where this is referred to by reference to the rateable value, the phrase is:
"… equal to or more than two-thirds of the rateable value …"
We are, therefore, taking a different standard when judging it against the rateable value compared with the rent value. This is an unnecessary complication and it would have been better to have used the same standard in each case.
What is "letting value"? It is not defined in the Bill and it seems that merely to use the words
"… the letting value of the property …"
is an invitation to litigation. I can imagine endless cases over what is the letting value of property and when it is to be judged. I agree that the Amendment states that we are dealing with
1586
"… rent … at the commentment of the tenancy …"
but those words are not repeated after the phrase "letting value". Will the Minister give an assurance that the proper interpretation of this provision as drafted is that the letting value is to be taken at the commencement of the tenancy? Why not spell this out in the Bill?
I trust that we will be told, first, why the phrase "equal to" has not been used, as it is used in Clause 4, secondly, the definition of "letting value", and, thirdly, at what date the letting value is to be estimated.
Mr. MacDermot: I to some extent anticipated the hon. Gentleman's question about the onus of proof when moving the Amendment; when I said, and gave reasons why, it is sensible to put the onus of proof on the landlord rather than on the tenant.
To answer his question about the need for a stop, the landlord can claim the benefit of this proviso, and I would expect him to do so, in his notice in reply, which must be given within two months of the application being made by the tenant. That would then put the enfranchishing tenant on warning that this issue is to be raised—and if the matter cannot be resolved, it would eventually have to be determined in litigation.
8.0 p.m.
I do not think that there is any particular intention behind the reference to two-thirds. We are here not dealing with a formula in relation to rating, where no doubt the precise wording would have been used. I should have thought that it made very little difference in practice.
The letting value is a term that already appears in Clause 15(2), and the meaning of the term here would be the same as it is there. What the Amendment makes clear is that it is letting value on the terms of the tenancy. It does not mean the artificial letting value for rating purposes which, as I pointed out, was applied in a very unrealistic way in earlier rating practice. It would be the actual market value of the lease on the terms of the lease at the time when the lease was granted.
That leaves me to the point about time raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I think that the

1587
wording of the Amendment is quite clear. It says that it
"… shall not be regarded as a tenancy at a low rent if at the commencement of the tenancy the rent payable under the tenancy exceeded two-thirds of the letting value …".
It is at the commencement of the tenancy that one has to compare the two factors. One could only do that by taking the letting value at that date, and I am satisfied that that is what the words mean.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9.—(PURCHASE PRICE AND COSTS OF ENFRANCHISEMENT, AND TENANT'S RIGHT TO WITHDRAW.)
Lords Amendment No. 15: In page 13, line 41, leave out "but".
Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may refer not only to this Amendment but to Amendments Nos. 16, 18, 19 and 54. They are all directed to the same point, and I think that the whole series will commend itself to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.
Mr. Skeffington: Amendments 15 and 16 are directed, as are the other Amendments, to a point raised by the Law Society. Clause 9(1,a) as now drafted provides what the price of enfranchisement is to be. This is the market price of the freehold property, subject to the 50-year extension. Some ingenious minds—and, indeed, those familiar with valuation practice—have suggested that the very right of enfranchisement itself might act as a depressant, or, even before the valuation started, a factor that might be thought to be taken into account. With the insertion of the words
"but on the assumption that this Part of this Act conferred no right to acquire the freehold"
there cannot be a vicious circle of this type. I am advised that it is highly unlikely that the Lands Tribunal would have accepted that ingenious suggestion, but it has been thought better to provide against the possibility now in this way.
Turning to Amendment No. 18, a similar point suggested by the Law
1588
Society is that it is always been implicit—and we have stated this, and I think that it has been generally accepted—that the leaseholder's right to extend the lease is subject to the landlord's right to terminate the lease for redevelopment during the period of the extension. Amendment No. 18 makes explicit and clear beyond doubt what was implicit and, I think, understood.
As at present drafted subsection (1,a) is open to the possible interpretation that if the lease had not already been extended the right to extend it could be treated as though it had been exhausted. This was never the Government's intention, nor do I believe that anyone has ever suggested that it would be fair and proper. Amendment No. 19 deals with that point. In passing I may say that Amendment No. 54, which I will move in due course, deals with a similar point with regard to Schedule 2, where a qualified leaseholder who has put in a claim for extension at the end of the lease is required to give up possession under Clause 17 or Clause 18—the redevelopment Clauses. An ambiguity exists here which, perhaps cannot be cleared up unless we leave out the words "had been" and insert "was to be" in Schedule 2.
I commend these Lords Amendments to the House.
Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary has put the Amendments as being, perhaps, merely drafting Amendments, but I should have liked him to have explained what effect they might have on the development value within the purchase price. These Amendments—Amendment No. 16, for example—make it quite clear that one assumes in ascertaining the price that there is a freehold to be valued—a freehold subject to an existing lease and subject to an extended lease. One must disregard the fact that the lessee has any particular right to acquire that extension. Amendment No. 16 values it merely as though the purchaser is a stranger—I assume that to be the intention. This means that someone is buying freehold land subject to a lease which can be determined at any moment for the purpose of development. When it is determined at any moment by the landlord for the purpose of development the landlord has to pay a certain sum in compensation for it.

1589
We have never yet been able to discover clearly from the Bill itself whether or not that sum then paid includes the development value of the property, so one goes back to the original scheme in Clause 9(1,a)—the formula for the price.
Does the tenant pay for the development value of the property or the land at that time, and then, if the landlord decides to develop, does he get that compensation back again? Or is that development value cut out of both transactions, in which case it would be all right? If it is cut out of both transactions or included in both transactions that is quite correct. But might it, by Amendment No. 16, be excluded in the first transaction and included in the second transaction, so that when calculating the compensation for the landlord one disregards the development value, the planning consents and so on that the property has, and values it just as a piece of land with no value at all, but when the landlord wants to get the use of the land back again for development, does he have to pay development value for doing so?
This point arises directly on these Amendments, particularly because in Amendment No. 18 the words have been inserted to make quite clear that we are to assume that the extended lease is subject to the landlord's rights under Clause 17, that is to say, we are to assume that this is a lease under which the landlord can get his property back. This is a very different valuation from a lease which is bound to last for 50 years and there is no right for the landlord to get the property back. The property has to be subject to a lease which can be terminated by the landlord. The query I have is, will the landlord then have to pay development value, or does he get out of paying that development value? The answer to that question will affect the valuation arising out of the assumption we are asked to make in Amendment No. 16.
I trust that I have not confused the Joint Parliamentary Secretary too much. I admit that I am confused myself because we are faced with two or three Amendments to a formula which has been amended time and again as we have
1590
gone along yet we have never had an explanation of how the formula affects the development value of the property.
Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps I may try to assist the hon. Member. In a case where the tenant enfranchises and acquires the property he does so and pays a price on the basis of the assumption made in the Bill. That assumption of the extended lease takes into account the right of a landlord to re-possess for redevelopment This will ensure—this is a point on which the Law Society was worried—that an enfranchising leaseholder does pay for the development value, if any, in the price.
Point No. 2 is where there is no enfranchisement but an extension of the lease. The landlord then does exercise his right to re-possess for the purpose of redevelopment. What does he have to pay? I think the question which is troubling the hon. Member is, does he have to pay anything for redevelopment value? The answer is "no", because that leaseholder has not acquired development value. All he has acquired is a right to an extended lease, a 50 years' lease, of bricks and mortar value. The landlord has to pay him out for that, but for nothing else. He does not have to pay for development value.
Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I compliment him on that explanation which is the clearest explanation we have had on this Bill?
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 13, line 41, after "tenancy" insert:
";and on the assumption that, during the period commencing on the date 25 years before the original term date, or at the relevant time (whichever is the later), and ending on the original term date, the rent payable under the tenancy was to be the letting value at the commencement of that period ascertained in accordance with section 15(2)(a) below;"
8.15 p.m.
Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is virtually identical with one which was put down by hon. Members opposite for Report, but not

1591
moved. Perhaps it was not called. Its effect is that the price of enfranchisement would be calculated on the assumption that the leaseholder has an extended lease but is liable to pay a modern ground rent from a date 25 years before the original term date or, if it be later, from the date of the service of his notice.
The result would be that the price of enfranchisement would be based on an up-to-date site value if the leaseholder were enfranchised during the last 25 years and would more nearly reflect that value if he were enfranchised earlier. In all the arguments we have had—and there have been many—about what should be the price for enfranchisement, I do not think that until this Amendment anyone has suggested that the price should be higher than the existing market value of the reversion, but this is what this ingenious Amendment would achieve, perhaps unwittingly.
The results would be somewhat curious if we take the case of an ordinary 99-year lease. For the first 40 years or so, about the first third of the lease anyway, the effect would be very slight because there would be so much of the lease remaining and it would be only the last 25 years which would be affected. The effect on the value of the lease and on the enfranchisement price would be marginal, but, during the period when there are about 60 to 25 years to run, the position would be that the enfranchising leaseholder would pay more than he has to pay under the present law or under a present agreement for the enfranchisement at full market value of the landlord's interest. For the last 25 years of the term the terms of the existing tenancy would he swept away completely and the leaseholder would pay the terminal site value, or something very near to it.
Apart from this objection, which certainly from the point of view of hon. Members on this side of the House would be quite fatal to the Amendment, there would be a further disadvantage in that it would discourage leaseholders from enfranchising until the very last years of the term. I do not think it would be to anyone's advantage and it might be worse from the landlord's point of view as he would be kept in suspense longer. Furthermore, it would hit the leaseholder hardest at the time when he is most vul-
1592
nerable, when the lease has 30 years or so to run. For these reasons, I advise the House to reject the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Graham Page: The reason behind this Amendment, if I understand it correctly, is that in calculating the compensation we should look to the value of the asset which the tenant acquires rather than the value which is taken away from the landlord. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Amendment would sweep aside the terms of the lease—this from hon. Members opposite who are sweeping aside the terms of the whole of these leases. If they are doing that they should consider the proper compensation to be paid by the person who is gaining from it.
This Amendment would look to the value of the property in the hands of the tenant rather than the value of it as taken from the landlord because the tenant is being given the benefit of the Act. He is getting the house without payment. Therefore, he should pay for what he is getting in the land itself. What he is getting is the right, if he chooses, to relet that land on a long lease at an improved ground rent. It is that which their Lordships who introduced the Amendment wished to be taken into account rather than the value of the ground rent as taken away from the landlord.
There seems to be no reason why this should result in something higher than market value. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was considering the market value of the whole property, the land and the house. I would not have thought that an occasion could arise where the formula set out in the Amendment could result in a price higher than the market value of the land and the house. If it did, there would be no harm in limiting it to that amount. That is what the Government should have secured by tabling an Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
The difficulty about taking a broad Amendment without any limitation as to the 25 years which appears in the Amendment is that that would undoubtedly delay the tenant's giving notice. It would also give great advantage to the tenant who had a longer time to run on his existing lease. Therefore, to make it fair, the 25 years was taken in judging the ground rent over that period.

1593
It is no answer to say that this would sweep aside the terms of the lease and disregard the ground rent under the existing lease. Of course it does. We are disregarding the whole lease under the provisions of the Bill. What we are looking for in the Amendment is fair compensation for what the tenant will receive. The Amendment recognises the principles of the Bill, however much we may disagree with them—the principle that the tenant owns the bricks and mortar and that he must pay only for the land. In fact, he is not paying for the land under the formula set out in subsection (1,a). He is not paying the value of the assets he is getting. He would be paying a reasonable sum for it—not paying for the bricks and mortar, but just paying for the reasonable value of his land when it gets into his hands—if the formula in the Amendment were adopted. A tenant who is getting all the benefits to be conferred by the Bill—his house free of any payment—should at least pay a fair sum for the land which he is acquiring.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. MacDermot(seated and covered): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am informed that some of the police officers in the building have been calling a Count. This is a Division. I do not know whether in these circumstances you would think it right to call this Division off and to call a second Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. In these circumstances I propose
to call this Division off and to put the Question again.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords, in the said Amendment:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
8.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that when you gave instructions that the first Division was to be called off and the Question was to be put again, unfortunately a large number of hon. Members had already gone through the Lobbies and had, in fact, already been counted. In the circumstances, I am wondering whether the correct procedure might be now to call the present Division off and to start again and clear the Lobbies.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must apologise to the House if there has been any confusion as a result of the faulty ringing of the bells. I think that in the circumstances the right course would be for me to order the doors to be locked—"Lock the doors"—and then for the Lobbies to be cleared and for the Division to start afresh. I do not think I can put the Question again until the Lobbies have first been cleared. I will direct the Lobbies now to be cleared, and then in a few minutes I will put the Question again.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 95.

Division No. 494.]

AYES

[8.35 p.m.

Alldritt, Walter

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Allen, Scholefield

Buchan, Norman

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Anderson, Donald

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Archer, Peter

Cant, R. B.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Dempsey, James

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Chapman, Donald

Dewar, Donald

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Coe, Denis

Dickens, James

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Coleman, Donald

Dobson, Ray

Barnett, Joel

Conlan, Bernard

Doig, Peter

Beaney, Alan

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Dunnett, Jack

Bidwell, Sydney

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Binns, John

Crawshaw, Richard

Edelman, Maurice

Blackburn, F.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Booth, Albert

Dalyell, Tam

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Boston, Terence

Davidson, Arthur (Accrlngton)

Ellis, John

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Ensor, David

Brooks, Edwin

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Finch, Harold

Leadbitter, Ted

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Sheldon, Robert

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Loughlin, Charles

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

MacDermot, Niall

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Ford, Ben

Macdonald, A. H.

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Freeson, Reginald

McGuire, Michael

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Gardner, Tony

Mackintosh, John P.

Skeffington, Arthur

Garrett, W. E.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Slater, Joseph

Gourlay, Harry

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Small, William

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Manuel, Archie

Spriggs, Leslie

Gregory, Arnold

Mapp, Charles

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Marquand, David

Swain, Thomas

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mellish, Robert

Symonds, J. B.

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Mendelson, J. J.

Tinn, James

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Tomney, Frank

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Urwin, T. W.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Varley, Eric G.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Hamling, William

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Neal, Harold

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Haseldine, Norman

Norwood, Christopher

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Heffer, Eric S.

O'Malley, Brian

Waliace, George

Hilton, W. S.

Orme, Stanley

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Hooley, Frank

Oswald, Thomas

Weitzman, David

Hooson, Emlyn

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Wellbeloved, James

Horner, John

Padley, Walter

Whitaker, Ben

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Whitlock, William

Howie, W.

Park, Trevor

Wilkins, W. A.

Huckfield, Leslie

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Pentland, Norman

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Hunter, Adam

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Winnick, David

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Price, William (Rugby)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)

Probert, Arthur

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Yates, Victor

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, west)

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

Ryan, John

Mr. Neil McBride.

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Heseltine, Michael

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Astor, John

Hiley, Joseph

Percival, Ian

Awdry, Daniel

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Pink, R. Bonner

Body, Richard

Holland, Philip

Pounder, Rafton

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hordern, Peter

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hornby, Richard

Prior, J. M. L.

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hunt, John

Pym, Francis

Clegg, Walter

Iremonger, T. L.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Cooke, Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Cordle, John

Jopling, Michael

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Costain, A. P.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lane, David

Royle, Anthony

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dance, James

Loveys, W. H.

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

McMaster, Stanley

Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maddan, Martin

Smith, John

Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Maginnis, John E.

Stodart, Anthony

Errington, Sir Eric

Maude, Angus

Summers, Sir Spencer

Farr, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Foster, Sir John

Miscampbell, Norman

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Gibson-Watt, David

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Grant-Ferris, R.

Monro, Hector

Ward, Dame Irene

Gresham Cooke, R.

Montgomery, Fergus

Weatherill, Bernard

Grieve, Percy

More, Jasper

Webster, David

Gurden, Harold

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Murton, Oscar

Worsley, Marcus

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Younger, Hn. George

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Hawkins, Paul

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hay, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Mr. Anthony Grant and

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we proceed with these important deliberations, are we to be vouchsafed any explanation of the curious circumstances which led to so many of us being shut up in the Lobby for so long?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have caused inquiries to be made as to what happened when the bells inadvertently rang for a Count instead of for a Division.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As your announcement was that there was a Division, can you tell the House from what time the necessary minutes started to be counted? Presumably it was from immediately the erroneous signal was corrected to the right one. But in spite of that we seemed to be kept in the Division Lobby far longer than would be justified by that particular matter.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already expressed my regrets to the House for any inconvenience that was caused to right hon. and hon. Members. As I understand the position at the moment—I am still awaiting a full explanation—when I first called the Division by some inadvertence the bells sounded for a Count and an announcement to that effect was made, with the result that a number of hon. Members, but not all, thought that there was a Count and not a Division. Some hon. Members went through the Lobby under the impression that there was a Division, and on the second occasion when a Division was called some hon. Members thought that having been through the Division Lobby once there was no need for them to go through again. Therefore, so that the matter could be regularised I ordered the Division Lobbies to be cleared and the Division to be started afresh.
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can those of us who have voted four times now go home?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that clear and candid explanation of these peculiar circumstances. I certainly did not raise the question in any spirit of criticism. After all, to err is human,
1598
as we are constantly reminded by the presence of the Government Front Bench. It is, after all, a very suitably confusing end—though it is not quite the end—to a very confusing Bill.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you have said that you will institute an inquiry about what went wrong, may we take it that you will make a statement to the House tomorrow about what has happened?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that would be in accordance with precedent.
Dame Irene Ward: It would be a good idea.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(EXONERATION FROM, OR REDEMPTION OF, RENTCHARGES ETC.)
Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 18, line 27, leave out "(c), (5)" and insert "(b) and (c)".
Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. What is now paragraph (b) in Clause 4(1) was inserted during the Report stage, and it now requires us to renumber in the way suggested the paragraphs in Clause 4.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12.—(DISCHARGE OF MORTGAGES ETC. ON LANDLORD'S ESTATE.)
Lords Amendment No. 21: In page 21, line 9, at end insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a charge in favour of trustees for debenture holders which at the date of the conveyance to the tenant is (as regards the house and premises) a specific and not a floating charge."
Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 12 provides in general for the automatic discharge of mortgages and such other charges on the landlord's estate by the conveyance itself of the freehold to the leaseholder, subject to the tenant's applying the price payable

1599
in the first instance in or towards the redemption of the mortgage.
Subsection (5) of the Clause contains an exception to this general rule in that it excludes all charges which are secured by a series of debentures, and in the result the tenant is not required to pay the price for enfranchisement to the debenture holders as he would otherwise have to do.
What the Amendment does is to refine this exception by restricting it to debentures which create a floating charge, leaving any fixed charge on the assets of the company to be dealt with by the general rule. The point is that debentures

Clause 14.—(OBLIGATION TO GRANT EXTENDED LEASE.)

Lords Amendment No. 22: In page 24,1ine 33, at end insert—

"(5A) Where under a lease executed to give effect to this section the new tenancy takes effect subject to a subsisting charge on the existing tenancy, and at the time of its execution the person having the charge is by reason thereof entitled to possession of the documents of title relating to the existing tenancy, then he shall be similarly entitled to possession of the documents of title relating to the new tenancy and the tenant shall within one month of the execution of the lease deliver it to him, and the instrument creating or evidencing the charge shall apply in the event of the tenant failing to deliver the lease in accordance with this subsection as if the obligation to do so were included in the terms of the charge as set out in that instrument."

Read a second time.
Mr. Allason: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 7, to leave out from second 'the' to 'and' in line 8 and to insert:
'landlord shall deliver to that person the instrument creating the new tenancy'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can discuss at the same time the following Amendment to the Amendment, also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason)—in line 10, leave out 'deliver' and insert 'secure the delivery of'.
Mr. Clegg: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in another place, introducing the Government's Amendment, said that the motive was the concern expressed by building societies which had taken retail property as a security that they should get their hands on the new and extended lease, and we welcome in general this new provision in that it seeks to protect the mortgagee.
bentures in the form of a fixed charge are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from an ordinary mortgage, and it is, therefore, sensible that they should be dealt with under the general rule.
Mr. Rossi: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for this concession. The matter was pressed hard in Committee and again on Report stage and we were given an undertaking that it would be remedied in another place. We are grateful that the Government have made this small but valuable concession to this side of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
However, we are concerned about the position. As I understand the new provision, there is an obligation on the tenant to hand over the new lease within one month of its execution by the landlord but what happens if the tenant fails to do this and, having failed to do so, should sell the extended lease, which would be assigned to a purchaser without notice of the mortgage? What would be the position of the mortgagee in these circumstances? Is his only remedy then to sue the mortgagor under the covenant contained in the original mortgage?
If the mortgage were protected by the deposit of the original lease, there would be no registration and any purchaser from the tenant of the extended lease would not know of the legal charge affecting it. In these circumstances, it would seem that the mortgagee would be left with very poor remedy if his only remedy lay under the covenant contained in the original deed.
This is why we suggest that the new document should be handed over to the

1601
mortgagee, not by the tenant but by the landlord. This would mean that there would be no possibility of the tenant disposing of his new lease since, of course, he would not have the document in his possession to make title. We would appreciate it if the Government would tell us whether there are sanctions other than those contained in the new provision contained in the Lords Amendment.
Mr. Skeffington: In replying to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps I can relate my comments also to the Lords Amendment which, in due course, I shall ask the House to agree to. The position under this Clause is well known to hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and certainly to those who practice in this branch of the law. The building societies were concerned that a leaseholder whose lease was subject to a mortgage might obtain an extended lease without the mortgagee being brought into the matter and fail perhaps to hand over the new lease to the mortgagee. This could make for difficulty if the mortgagee subsequently had to foreclose or sell the house.
The new subsection makes it clear that whenever a mortgagee has possession of the title deeds relating to the original tenancy he is to be similarly entitled to the deeds relating to the new tenancy, and imposes upon the leaseholder a duty to hand over the new lease to the mortgagee within one month of its being executed. That is the clear obligation which is placed upon the leaseholder.
It can be regarded as a corollary to subsection (5) which already makes a similar provision—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I should point out that if he is proposing now to deal with the Lords Amendment as well as the Amendment moved by the hon. Member I do not think we can have a second debate on the Lords Amendment. It might well be for the convenience of the House if the two were discussed at the same time and if that is the wish of the House, so be it.
Mr. Skeffington: I have virtually finished this part of the explanation. I will come to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and then, if there is any
1602
further point, perhaps, with leave, I could speak again. However, I have virtually come to the hub of my explanation as to why the Opposition Amendment would not do. What we have done may be regarded as a corollary to subsection (5), with which the House is familiar. The Amendments proposed to line 7 and line 10 will not do, because the landlord may not know that the lease is subject to a mortgage and he has no means of finding out except by inquiry of the tenant, who will not disclose the charge to the landlord if he intends to conceal it in dealings with other people. It would, therefore, be unfair to expose the landlord to an action for damages by the mortgagee for a breach of this duty. If it is not intended that the landlord should be so exposed, there is no point in imposing the duty on him in addition to the duty on the tenant. The same objections apply to putting a duty on the landlord to draw the lease subject to a subsisting charge about which he may be ignorant. In view of the clear obligation which the new subsection puts upon a tenant, we feel that this is an adequate safeguard and we would be exposing the landlord to a peril which would be most unfair, because in many cases he would not have any means of checking the facts.
Mr. Graham Page: Surely the tenant will have to disclose the title to his existing tenancy to the landlord when he applies for the extended tenancy. Without being able to put my finger on it in the Bill, I thought it was the obligation of the tenant to disclose encumbrances on his existing tenancy so that the surrender of that and the granting of the new tenancy would be made. If not, I imagine that such a thing will be included in the Lord Chancellor's conditions which are to be made by Regulation. At any rate, it would be the normal thing for the tenant to disclose the encumbrances on the existing lease, including perhaps the mortgage which takes effect upon the new lease.
This is the background to the Amendments which my hon. Friend has moved: that there is an existing tenancy, the tenant has given notice that he requires an extended lease instead of taking the freehold, and the existing tenancy is subject to a mortgage. In the very first few lines of the Lords Amendment that

1603
we are seeking to agree here there is reference to the new tenancy taking effect subject to a subsisting charge on the existing tenancy. The normal thing would be that when that transaction is completed, the landlord's solicitor hands over the new lease to the tenant or the tenant's solicitor.
The only obligation placed on the tenant under the Lords Amendment is that within a month he shall deliver that document of title to his mortgagee. But what may he do with it in that month? This is our difficulty. The normal practice would be for the landlord when granting a new lease when another has been surrendered to hand over to the mortgagee who is entitled to this document of title. All we are proposing in the Amendment is that the normal practice should be observed and that the possibility of the fraudulent tenant avoiding handing his deeds to his mortgagee should be short circuited by saying that the landlord shall do it on completion of the transaction.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Rossi: What would be the position of a tenant who acted fraudulently in the intervening period of one month? If he had the new lease in his possession, apparently uncharged, could he not seek to borrow money from another person? Would there not then be a terrible conflict between a person who lent on the old lease which had expired and which was still subject to the charge and the new person who had unwittingly lent money on the new lease? What would be the security and who would have the security for the prospective sums borrowed?
Another situation could be for the tenant to sell his lease very quickly. The purchaser would get a good title and the money would pass into the pocket of the fraudulent tenant and the mortgagee could be left whistling for his money. These are practical difficulties which could arise and one would want the Bill to be sewn up so that we do not give opportunities of that kind.
Mr. Skeffington: I do not think that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is correct in saying that there is an obligation in the Bill in relation to encumbrances.
1604
One appreciates the difficulties and the existing practice and one has discussed this matter with the building societies and others to see whether any further obligation could be placed. They were satisfied that the new Clause 5(a) met the difficulty in placing this obligation. Of course it is always possible for any one not to comply with the obligations of the law, but it was felt that now that we have made it clear that whenever a mortgagor has possesison of the title deeds relating to the original tenancy he is similarly entitled to the deeds relating to the new tenancy and imposing on the leaseholder the strict obligation to hand over within one month of a new lease being executed covered the position. No doubt those advising will see that this is done, because the position of the leaseholder could obviously be extremely precarious if this obligation were not complied with.
It was suggested that the time might be too short, but it was felt that this was adequate time and that if the period were made too long, that would lead to further difficulties. Furthermore, this period is in parallel with that in the main provision to which the House has agreed previously.
Mr. Rossi: What is the sanction? If this is not done within one month, what is the sanction of law imposed on the tenant? I do not recall seeing a penalty spelled out in some other provision. How can this requirement be enforced?
Mr. Skeffington: The whole of the leaseholder's position would be at stake if he had not complied with this provision and that is a very powerful sanction.
Amendment negatived.
Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15.—(TERMS OF TENANCY TO BE GRANTED ON EXTENSION.)
Lords Amendment No. 23: In page 25, line 25, leave out from "of" to "shall" in line 27, and insert
"each period of ten years after the original term date the letting value at the expiration of that period".
Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I gave reasons why it should

1605
also disagree with the Lords Amendments, in page 25, line 30, leave out "either" and insert "each"; in line 33, leave out "by" and insert "equally by the landlord and"; and in line 35, leave out "of the twenty-five," and insert "year of any period of ten".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.
Mrs. White: The purpose of this Amendment and the others, which are consequential upon it, is to ensure that if a tenant should apply for and obtain an extended lease, the amount of ground rent payable, which is to be a modern ground rent in the first instance, not the old ground rent of the former leases, should naturally be determined at the initial period of the new lease.
It was felt that the 50 year extension which was available under this provision was perhaps rather long in terms of modern devaluation of the currency and that it was fair to the landlord to suggest that half way through the period there should be an opportunity for a revision of the rent. The Amendment suggests that the 25 year period proposed is too long and that instead of one revision after the initial one there should be revision every ten years.
When we originally discussed this matter, an even shorter period of seven years was suggested. This seemed entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the proposals in the Bill. I do not think that ten years is any great improvement. We still think that it is quite unreasonable for a revaluation of the rent. I would remind the House that if one looks a little further down in Clause 15 one will see that what we ale discussing under these Amendments is rent pure and simple.
Where other charges are concerned, in subsection (3), either for services, or for repairs, maintenance or insurance, there are separate arrangements, whereby these charges can be dealt with more quickly. It is only the ground rent that is the subject of these Amendments. It is true that there is a slight palliative in suggesting these extra valuations. Amendment No. 25 proposes that instead of making the tenant responsible for the entire cost of the valuation, and one would be increasing the number of valuations from
1606
two to five, one should arrange for this cost to be shared with the landlord.
This is a slight disadvantage to the tenant, who would have to pay two and a half instead of two valuations. One would not say that it was a matter of great principle, that one would necessarily regard that as being conclusive, but it is nevertheless a slight disadvantage to the tenant. The main argument against this proposition, however, is that if one is to have so many valuations, one will not merely increase the expense but also the work. We are frequently told that we are short of good valuers, and it is really, to our mind, against public policy, that one should suggest that one would need so many valuations in the course of a 50 year tenancy.
All that we are discussing is the ground rent. I repeat that there are other arrangements for all other charges which may go up. We do not think that a landlord would display very much business acumen if he could not reasonably work out 25 years ground rent. He has the chance to revise. At the beginning the new extension would be set at the current market rate and we cannot see adequate arguments for adding to the tenant's uncertainty and causing extra work in valuation for no good reason. We hope that the House will not persist with these Amendments but will disagree with their Lordships.
Mr. Allason: The right hon. Lady suggests that, when a landlord fixes a rent for the first 25 years, he should take into account the fact that it is against public policy to have frequent rent reviews and should therefore fix it high enough to avoid them. Is she saying that the rent for that period shall not be the current market rent but something midway between the current market rent at the beginning and that at the end of the period? This is what it means if she invites landlords to quote the proper rent.
Surely a landlord who started quoting a rent considerably in excess of the current value of the land would run into trouble—
Mrs. White: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. The current market rent, if for 25 years, takes that whole situation into account, surely.
Mr. Allason: But that is what it does not do. The right hon. Lady was more

1607
robust at our last discussion when she replied to me:
"… we do not think that to revise a ground rent every seven years makes sense. Property owners should be able to foresee conditions for 25 years ahead; we are not suggesting that they should crystal gaze for as long as 50 years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1582.]
But property owners cannot foresee conditions 25 years ahead at the moment; they know that there will be inflation and therefore they do not generally grant leases longer than seven years and usually have a rent review at the end of that period.
To suggest that they can foresee conditions and then quote current market rent is ridiculous, because that rent does not reflect inflation over the next 25 years, and Heaven knows what that will be. It can reflect only the bargain which a landlord strikes: he takes current market
rent and has to give the tenant a reasonable period—seven years—at the end of which, he realises, the value of money will have dropped.
I continue to argue that seven years is the proper time. Their Lordships have compromised between seven and 25 and settled on ten years, which at least is divisible into 50, a merit which my proposal did not have, as I admitted. The Government want to revert from ten to their wicked 25 years. These will not be freely negotiated deals, as the landlord will be compelled to grant a 25-year lease. Under the Government's proposals he will have to do it at the current market rent, which is just further evidence of the Government's zeal for expropriation.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 92.

Division No. 495.]

AYES

[9.15 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Leadbitter, Ted

Alldritt, Walter

Ellis, John

Loughlin, Charles

Allen, Scholefield

Ennals, David

McBride, Neil

Anderson, Donald

Ensor, David

MacDermot, Niall

Archer, Peter

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Macdonald, A. H.

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

McGuire, Michael

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Finch, Harold

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mackintosh, John P.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Barnett, Joel

Ford, Ben

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Bessell, Peter

Freeson, Reginald

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

Bidwell, Sydney

Galpern, Sir Myer

Manuel, Archie

Binns, John

Gardner, Tony

Mapp, Charles

Blackburn, F.

Garrett, W. E.

Marquand, David

Boardman, H.

Gourlay, Harry

Mellish, Robert

Booth, Albert

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mendelson, J. J.

Boston, Terence

Gregory, Arnold

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Brooks, Edwin

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Buchan, Norman

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Neal, Harold

Cant, R. B.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Norwood, Christopher

Chapman, Donald

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

O'Malley, Brian

Coe, Denis

Handing, William

Orme, Stanley

Coleman, Donald

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Oswald, Thomas

Conlan, Bernard

Haseldine, Norman

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Heffer, Eric S.

Padley, Walter

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hilton, W. S.

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Crawshaw, Richard

Hooley, Frank

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Hooson, Emlyn

Park, Trevor

Dalyell Tam

Horner, John

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Pavitt, Laurence

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Howie, W.

Pentland, Norman

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Huckfield, Leslie

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Probert, Arthur

Dempsey, James

Hunter, Adam

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Dewar, Donald

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Dickens, James

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Dobson, Ray

Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.)

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Doig, Peter

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ryan, John

Dunnett, Jack

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Sheldon, Robert

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Skeffington, Arthur

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Winnick, David

Slater, Joseph

Wallace, George

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Small, William

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Spriggs, Leslie

Weitzman, David

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Wellbeloved, James

Yates, Victor

Swain, Thomas

Whitaker, Ben

Tinn, James

White, Mrs. Eirene

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Tomney, Frank

Whitlock, William

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Urwin, T. W.

Wilkins, W. A.

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Varley, Eric G.

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Hawkins, Paul

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Astor, John

Hay, John

Percival, Ian

Awdry, Daniel

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Pink, R. Bonner

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Heseltine, Michael

Pounder, Rafton

Body, Richard

Hiley, Joseph

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Qulntin

Prior, J. M. L.

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Pym, Francis

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hordern, Peter

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Clegg, Walter

Hornby, Richard

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cooke, Robert

Hunt, John

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Iremonger, T. L.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Costain, A. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Jopling, Michael

Royle, Anthony

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dance, James

Lane, David

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby;

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Loveys, W. H.

Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McMaster, Stanley

Smith, John

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Maddan, Martin

Stodart, Anthony

Errington, Sir Eric

Maginnis, John E.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Farr, John

Maude, Angus

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Foster, Sir John

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

van Straubenzee, W. R,

Gibson-Watt, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Grant, Anthony

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Ward, Dame Irene

Grant-Ferris, R.

Montgomery, Fergus

Weatherill, Bernard

Gresham Cooke, R.

More, Jasper

Webster, David

Grieve, Percy

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Gurden, Harold

Murton, Oscar

Worsley, Marcus

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Younger, Hn. George

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Mr. Timothy Kitson and

Mr. Hector Monro.

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Clause 19.—(RETENTION OF MANAGEMENT POWERS FOR GENERAL BENEFIT OF NEIGHBOURHOOD.)
Lords Amendment No. 27: In page 32, line 11, leave out "landlord" and insert "Minister".
Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Unless there is objection, I suggest that we discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 28 to 36, inclusive.
Mr. Skeffington: That is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.
This series of Amendments will generally commend itself to the House since there was a desire on both sides that the
1610
opportunities provided under Clause 19 for the maintenance of estates in their entirety—where there were advantages for the whole of the community for them to be preserved in that way—should apply not only on the application of the landlord.
This point was put with great force by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and subsequently representations were made to the Department. The hon. Member for Hendon, South came with a deputation, particularly in relation to the Hampstead Garden Surburb. To honour an undertaking given by me on the Floor of the House and by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State in Committee, we saw whether it would be possible to introduce in another place provisions which would meet the desire of my hon. and learned Friend the

1611
Member for Dulwich, the hon. Member for Hendon, South and others.
As we said from the very beginning, intrinsically there was no objection; in fact, there was everything to be said for tenants having this opportunity, although there were greater difficulties in providing satisfactory and suitable arrangements to grant the provisions under Clause 19 to a body of representative tenants, since often they do not have the resources or knowledge of the properties concerned, in addition to there being other difficulties.
Although the provisions which we have made may not be absolutely watertight—because of the practical difficulties which I enumerated on a previous occasion—this series of Amendments was tabled in another place largely to meet the united desire of hon. Members. The most important of these Amendments—the substance of the whole change—is No. 36, which inserts a new subsection. It provides that where the Minister considers that, for any area, a certificate could be given on the application of the landlord—that is, that it is a well maintained estate and meets the characteristics enumerated elsewhere in the Clause—he may grant the certificate to a representative body of people occupying or interested in the property in the area or areas. The word "areas" is used to meet the case of Hampstead Garden Suburb, where the ownership is in two portions, one a trust and the other a company. The provision therefore makes allowance for two ownerships of that kind and it may apply to other parts of the country should an application be made.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister must be satisfied as to the bona fides of the representative body. Obviously, the normal inquiries will be made. I have expressed concern in the past about putting this into legislative form, but inquiries can be made and the Minister will have to use common sense in this matter.
The representative body can make its application alone or jointly with the landlord. It makes it if the landlord apparently does not intend to do so. The very fact that this power is now available to a group of tenants will go a long way to inducing some possible landowners who might not have been so
1612
enthusiastic because undoubtedly, if they apply, they will have very much greater influence on the scheme than if someone else did it. When a certificate is granted the representative body can apply to the High Court for approval to a management scheme and it can do so on its own or with the landlord. It can do this even if one of the other parties may not have made the application.
The court will be ready to give rights and powers to the representative body which normally it would have given to the landlord. The landlord must give his consent in relation to his freehold ownership and the representative body must then compensate the landlord for the loss of his rights if that is appropriate. The court can enable the representative body to participate in any scheme of management by the landlord. Sometimes there will be a kind of partnership between the landlord and the tenants.
It may be difficult for a representative body on an estate to draw up a scheme of management or indeed sometimes to define the boundaries and what property is within them. A group of tenants is not in the same position as the managers of an estate, but the new subsection nevertheless provides that a group of residents occupying as residential lessees shall have an opportunity of putting forward a scheme which often will help them to get a scheme of management of their own. It may be that no one will help them but the fact that they can do it will mean that the landlord will take the initiative or give his sanction.
In many of the better-managed estates, tenants desire to preserve real amenities. There are still practical difficulties in the final way in which this proposition may work out. Nevertheless, we have given it legal statutory opportunity under the Bill and I think this is a very powerful instrument for any such group. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South is sorry that he cannot be present for this part of the debate. He and Hampstead Garden Suburb feel satisfied with the length to which we have gone to meet them. I put that on record because the hon. Member expressed his regret that he could not be here. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

1613
Dulwich will feel that we have gone as far as we can in this matter.
Mr. Graham Page: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have no very great faith in Clause 19. I do not think it sets out a process which is going to be of any use to landlords whose property has been enfranchised or that there will be many cases in which tenants will be prepared to take on the responsibility. However, there is no doubt that the Clause has been improved by the introduction of the subsections dealing with the taking over of these responsibilities by a representative body. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) also told me that he regrets that he is not able to be present. By his proposal, put forward in this House, he set in motion for an improvement of this Clause.
I think that there will be few occasions on which a body of representatives will be prepared to form themselves into a representative body, to hand their affairs in this connection over to a committee, perhaps consisting of some of themselves and the landlord, and to be liable, personally perhaps, for the actions of this body or this committee. I imagine that they will wish to form themselves into a society or into a company with limited liability.
If I read this correctly, it will be possible for such persons to form themselves into a housing society or a housing association, or into a company limited by liability or by guarantee, or for them in some way to limit their personal liability for actions which may be done in their name by a committee. I assume that a company could be a representative body under Clause 19. I hope so, because this seems to be the practical way of doing it. We all know of many residential estates where there are private roads and common parts to be kept up and where the original estate-owner has disappeared or has not carried on the upkeep of the estate. Usually in such cases the residents form themselves into a limited liability company and make up the roads by subscription to that company, thereby saving themselves from personal liability. I assume that that sort of thing can be done in this case.
1614
I do not think that the fact that an application under Clause 19 can delay any dealings with the properties will cause any difficulty. The Clause originally provided only for an application by the landlord to keep some control of the management and development of the estate. Here the right is being given to a representative body on its own to come in and take over from the landlord. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he hoped that such a body would do it jointly with the landlord. However, there is the power for the representative body to come in and to wrest power from the landlord.
I hope that the Minister, in giving his certificate, will pay regard to the rights of the landlord and to the rights of the tenant and will seek to hold the balance fairly between the two parties. It will be a grave responsibility on the Minister to investigate whether a representative body is capable of running matters or, indeed, for that matter, whether the existing landlord is capable of running them. I hope that this will not mean a great increase in staff at the Ministry.
Finally, although I have no very great faith that the Clause will be used, I think that it has been improved by these Amendments from another place.
Mr. Donald Chapman: A large part of the Bourneville Village Trust is in my constituency. The residents on that estate are very interested in Clause 19. There have been public meetings on this issue in my constituency. I am still very concerned about the effects of the Clause and about the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the negotiations he had had with bodies representing what might broadly be called the landlords in cases like this. Did he get assurances from them that they will not try unduly to delay these matters? They have two years in which to get the Minister's certificate and another year for the High Court to get its approval. It can be three years before enfranchisement can begin to take place on any real scale.
I am concerned about the length of time that is involved. Does it mean—this is where I come primarily to these Lords Amendments—that in a case where there is obviously undue delay by

1615
the landlord—I have no reason to think that there will be undue delay in the case of the Bourneville Village Trust, but one never knows—a representative body of tenants of the Trust could begin to get together and use this Amendment to force the hand of the Trust or the landlord? Could they begin to apply to the Minister and say, "There is so much delay on the part of the landlord in using Clause 19. In the meantime he is using the Clause to delay enfranchisement. We now as tenants wish to avail ourselves of Clause 19 in default of speedy action by the landlord and we ask you to recognise us and to set the process in motion"? If this is one result of the Amendments—to hold a pistol at the head of some of the estates to get on with the use of Clause 19 and not delay the process to its full limit—I would be glad to accept these Amendments that their Lordships have suggested.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I congratulate their Lordships on these Amendments which seem to me to set the seal upon a Clause in which I personally have been greatly interested. I have in mind areas such as Bourneville, Hampstead and Dulwich where there are undoubted advantages in the leasehold system, and it is right that what is advantageous in them should be preserved. I am certain that this Clause has that effect.
There seemed to me at an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill to be a possible lacuna where one had a landlord who was not prepared to accept the obligations created by Clause 19. I do not overrate that possibility. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about the operation of Clause 19 because it seems to me that the transitional period before full enfranchisement of any large estate will be so long that no landlord who is interested in preserving the value of his asset is likely to fail to take advantage of this Clause.
To say one word about the point which my hon. Friend has just made, as I see it, the real sanction of the Clause is that unless the landlord makes early application for a certificate he will find that not only have the notices been given by the lessees but that they have actually taken effct. If the landlord delays at all for any substantial period of time he will find
1616
that a great many people have already enfranchised before he is able to apply to the Minister for a certificate at all. It is only after his application has been made that the standstill is created, and even at that stage, as I understand the Clause, the serving of the notice is really as good as having the freehold. I agree with my hon. Friend that the possibility of a body of lessees—whether formed as a society or, as the hon. Member for Crosby suggested, in a company which may very well be appropriate in some cases—to have the power to step in will be a very powerful inducement to many landlords.
I should like shortly to state how I think this could happen in practice. I envisage not so much a body representing all the lessees on a very large estate taking advantage of this provision but rather the lessees on perhaps a small part of an estate which is self-contained, and that the lessees may get together and say, "We can run this small part of the estate on our own and we will proceed to ask for a certificate accordingly." In cases of that kind, it can be extremely valuable, and I am grateful to the Government for having accepted the principle of the Amendment on the matter which I moved in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 20.—(JURISDICTION AND SPECIAL POWERS OF COUNTY COURT.)
Lords Amendment No. 37: In page 36, line 41, after "10" insert "or 30(1)".
9.45 p.m.
Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that with this Amendment we take Lords Amendment No. 38, in page 38, line 25, to leave out "above" and to insert, "or 30(1) of this Act".
Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am much obliged. These are little more than drafting Amendments, the purpose being to make sure that the jurisdiction given to the county courts and the Lands Tribunal to settle disputes about covenants to be included in a conveyance on enfranchisement is to extend also to disputes about the exact nature of covenants

1617
reserving development rights which may be required by local authorities and others under Clause 30.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(VALIDITY OF TENANT'S NOTICES, EFFECT ON LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 AND ON NOTICES TO QUIT, ETC., AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY.)
Lords Amendment No. 39: In page 39, line 42, after "premises" insert "and landlord's costs".
Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps I may conveniently refer at the same time to Amendment No. 40, in page 39, line 43, after "agent" insert "or as stakeholder". These two Amendments, which are virtually drafting Amendments, meet points arising out of the consideration now being given to the content of regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 22(2). Amendment No. 39 ensures that, if the regulations provide for the leaseholder to pay a deposit at some stage between the service of notice to enfranchise and completion of the transaction, this deposit is to be on account of the landlord's costs as well as on account of the price. Otherwise, a landlord would not be entitled to get back his costs if the leaseholder at a later stage did not carry on with the transaction under Clause 9. This seems only fair and proper.
Amendment No. 40 recognises a point made by the Law Society, that deposits are, in modern practice, often paid to stakeholders. It will enable the Lord Chancellor to provide for payment of a deposit to a stakeholder if he so wishes.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 24.—(PRESERVATION OF TRUSTS, CHARGES ETC. AFFECTING TENANT'S ESTATE.)
Lords Amendment No. 44: In page 42, line 32, leave out Clause 24.
Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 24 was never really necessary in the Bill since, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out on one occasion, it only put into words what is already the legal position when there is an agreement whereby a leaseholder enlarges his leasehold interest into a freehold or negotiates a new lease in substitution for an existing lease. The Clause provided that the new freehold or substituted lease was to be subject to the same third party rights as the original lease. The third party rights would, however, merely take effect in equity; in order to perfect his title, the third party, such as a mortgagee of the leasehold interest, must apply to the court for an order providing for the legal estate in the freehold or extended leave to be vested in him, unless, as would normally happen, the leaseholder executes a further deed in his favour. Clause 24 was an attempt to have a short cut, so that the legal estate in the enlarged interest vested in the third party automatically.
But it now appears that the short cut would cause difficulties and inconvenience in registration. The Land Registry is often not in a position to investigate the leasehold title, which in a number of cases may not be registered, and so would be unable to ascertain whether or not it was mortgaged. The effect of Clause 24 might therefore have been to create errors in the register, for which the Government are financially liable. It is therefore thought better that the Clause should be removed. I am sure that the House will be glad to do that, for the Bill will thereby be shorter.
Mr. Clegg: I follow the Minister's arguments and can see the trouble that would be caused in the Land Registry, but is it absolutely certain that Clause 24 as it stood merely repeated the present law? Are there not cases where the mortgagee could not compel the mortgagor to execute a new document charging the freehold interest? Is it not possible under the law as it now stands for the lessee who buys in the freehold interest merely to leave the mortgagee to cover the leasehold interest and retain the

1619
freehold interest, without merging the two legal estates? If that is the present case, Clause 24 would go beyond the present law. Could the Joint Parliamentary Secretary explain a little further?
Mr. Graham Page: I have some further points which I should like to put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We are all very pleased that the Bill can be shortened by one Clause. I wish that it could be shortened by 42 Clauses and seven Schedules so that there is no Bill at all.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated that I had said at some stage that the Clause was unnecessary. I do not recall saying that. I do not think that I spoke on it in Committee. The Clause was removed in another place after only a very short debate and without really full discussion. It must have had a purpose when it was first put into the Bill, and apparently the only reason for taking it out is some inconvenience in the Land Registry. The Land Registry should meet conveyancing convenience. We should not change the law just for the sake of convenience at the Land Registry.
I am very worried about losing the Clause now, because it seemed to make provision for cases which might otherwise go by default, and a person entitled to an interest in property might lose his rights by reason of the extension of the lease. The Clause clearly says that
"the interest acquired shall be held in the same right and on the same trusts and subject to the same powers, privileges, charges, restraints and liabilities as those in, on or subject to which the tenancy was held".
What is being granted here if a tenant requires a new lease is a new title altogether, a new interest in the property. It cannot necessarily follow from that that someone who has an interest in the existing tenancy, which will be a surrendered or terminated tenancy, will be able to carry over that interest so that it becomes an interest in the new tenancy. The Clause did that for him. I cannot see what it does for him now that the Clause is removed.
We come back to the point that we were discussing earlier, for example a mortgagee whose charge on the property is intended to extend into the new lease, but he may be deprived of the benefits
1620
of that by not receiving the documents of title. Worse still, if we remove the Clause he may be deprived of his rights over the new tenancy altogether.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that this was inconvenient to the Land Registry because upon registration of the new lease the Land Registry might not know to what a previous lease had been subject and, therefore, would not know what to enter in the Register in respect of the new lease. But surely this is the job of the tenant who is applying for registration of his new lease. He is under an obligation, if it is within the area of compulsory registration, to register his lease. Otherwise, it is not valid. He registers it subject to whatever restrictions may be upon it. I cannot see the real difficulty of the Land Registry in these cases, nor do I think it is a justification for removing what I should have thought was a useful Clause.
Mr. Skeffington: If we may, with permission, answer the points which have been raised, the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) put the case as I should have put it originally for the Clause when it was in the Bill. There was something to be said, if it could safely be done, for automatically transferring the enlarged interest, the third party rights, in this way. That was the justification for putting the Clause in. But there are two difficulties.
It would, I think, be irresponsible for the Government, now that the matter has been brought to their attention by various interests, to embark upon a course which would probably result in errors being recorded in the Register, not only because of the Government's personal financial liability but also because of the other consequences that could flow from an incorrect registration. I think that on that ground alone the course that the Government are indicating is the right one.
But there is also the point about the third party. It seems to me that he could safeguard his position only either by applying to the court for a declaration or by the leaseholder executing a further deed in his favour. Under a Clause that we have already passed the leaseholder must now within one month transfer the new documents to the third party, the mortgagee in this case, and, therefore,

1621
the mortgagee should be fully aware of his rights. It is then open to him to protect them in one or other of the ways provided. It would be wrong if we retained this short Clause in the Bill and he thought he was protected when he might not be. Indeed, his rights might be registered incorrectly in the Register.
For all these reasons, although there are some regrets that we cannot have automatic transfer to third parties, the Government think that this is the safe and proper course to adopt.
Question put and agreed to.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Leasehold Reform Bill and on the Motion relating to Standing Orders (Ways and Means) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
Lords Amendments further considered.
LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL

  Clause 29.—(RETENTION OR RESUMPTION OF LAND REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.)
  Lords Amendment No. 45: In page 46, line 35, leave out "shortly" and insert "in ten years or less".
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment substitutes a maximum period of ten years for the rather vague period denoted by the word "shortly" in the Bill as the period within which a property may be certified by the appropriate Minister to be required for development in order to prohibit enfranchisement or the obtaining of an extended lease from a local authority or similar body.
  During earlier stages of the Bill, a number of Amendments were discussed aimed at having a fixed limit and a period of seven years was suggested. The
  1622
  Amendment gives a period of ten years and I imagine that there will be general agreement that we should have a fixed period. I will explain why a period of ten years has been chosen.
  As the House will be aware, local authorities may be authorised to buy land compulsorily in advance of their requirements, but there is a limit to this. Under Section 97(2) of the Housing Act, 1957, the authorisation of the compulsory purchase of property for housing purposes is limited to a maximum of ten years in advance of the likely date of the property being required for those purposes.
  Again, Section 5(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act limits the Minister's power to approve a development plan which designates land as subject to compulsory purchase to cases where the land is to be acquired within ten years of the plan's approval. It would seem sensible, therefore, when we are trying to remove what would be an absurd position of the leaseholder's enfranchising only to have the property taken back from him compulsorily soon afterwards, that we should adopt some period within which such a possibility might be anticipated under these provisions.
  The Amendment accordingly fixes a maximum period of ten years. It does not follow that the appropriate Minister will always or, indeed, often think it right to grant a certificate when the site will not be needed until the end of the ten years. The Minister will thus always have a discretion whether to grant a certificate or not but the Amendment will improve the position of leaseholders by making it clear that the Clause can only operate within a ten-year time limit.
  Mr. Allason: I am grateful that at least a ten-year period has been accepted by the Government. In Committee I suggested a seven-year period. This has taken a long time to get through the pipeline. It is a necessary safeguard to have a fixed period and it is a safeguard for the tenant. For that reason in particular, I welcome the Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 46: In page 48, line 33, leave out "so that" and insert
  "in relation to a local authority includes any development to be undertaken, whether or not

  1623
  by that authority, in order to secure the development or re-development of an area defined by a development plan as an area of comprehensive development.
  However—"
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Amendment makes clear that when the Minister gives a certificate to a local authority that land will be needed in ten years or less for a comprehensive development scheme, the scheme does not have to be one which is actually to be carried out exclusively by the local authority. It may be a scheme in which the local authority sells or leases sites to developers to carry out redevelopment. That factor would not alter the correctness of making this provision apply. It is irrelevant who is to carry out the actual development.
  Mr. Graham Page: Why restrict it to local authorities? Under Clause 29 there are many bodies who can take advantage of that Clause and have the Minister's certificate to prevent enfranchisement by their tenants if they can show now, as the Amendment we have just passed provides, that they intend development in 10 years or less. It may be that not only local authorities, but other bodies mentioned in subsection (5) would wish to carry out development by other media than doing it themselves directly. For example, the second group under subsection (5), the Commission for the New Towns. I would think that it is possible for the Commission for the New Town to enter into arrangements with a developer for development of some of its land. Certainly so far as the university bodies are concerned, time and time again they arrange their development not by themselves but by some developer and carry out development in that way. I could go on through the list, the regional hospital boards and so on.
  It seems a pity that this Amendment is restricted to the local authorities. It seems a pity not only that it does not only positively extend to the other bodies mentioned in subsection (5) of Clause 29 but, by introducing this particular Clause relating to local authorities, it precludes this happening by those other bodies. Had this not been introduced the Bill might have been construed as including development arranged by these
  1624
  bodies as well as carried out by themselves. However, with this provision particularly referring to local authorities, I fear that the rest of the Clause may now be construed as excluding the other bodies from carrying out development by assistance from other companies or bodies or persons.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 39.—(MODIFICATION OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION UNDER LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954.)
  Lords Amendment No. 47: In page 63, line 21, leave out "that ground is established" and insert "the property is so required".
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment is consequential on the one that we discussed a moment ago replacing the word "shortly" by "in ten years or less".
  Now that the certificate is merely going to say that the property will be needed in 10 years or less, subsection (2) of Clause 39 goes too far in making it conclusive evidence that the property is needed for redevelopment so soon that the court ought to make an order for possession. The effect of this Amendment is to make the certificate conclusive only of what it actually says, leaving the body to prove to the court that it is actually ready to start operations.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 41.—(AMENDMENTS OF PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) ACT, 1920.)
  Lords Amendment No. 48: In page 64, line 45, at end insert—
  "(2) In section 1(1) of the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920 after paragraph (a) of the proviso there shall be inserted as a new paragraph (aa) the following paragraph:—
  '(aa) where the person entitled to the freehold or an intermediate reversion requires that underlying minerals be excepted, the trustees shall not be entitled to acquire his interest in the minerals if proper provision is made for the support of the premises as they have been enjoyed during the lease and in accordance with the terms of the lease and of the trust; and'".
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this Amendment we are taking Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 and 63 to 66.
  Mr. Skeffington: That is so, Mr. Speaker.
  The purpose of this series of Amendments is to provide for Clause 2(6) of the Bill in relation to minerals to be substituted, in relation to the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920, in place of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.
  When we were in Committee a good deal of amusement was occasioned when I was asked among other things to explain when a place of worship was a railway station. In the 1920 Act the only way thought appropriate of dealing with minerals underneath at that time was to apply the same sort of provisions as were to be found in railway legislation whereby the railways had the rights to the land on the top but not to the minerals underneath. Those were the provisions then incorporated, but we thought it more convenient to use Clause 2 as amended earlier this evening. It makes it absolutely clear that minerals are not included unless specifically within the terms of the lease. The four Amendments to the Schedules are a complete reflection, as it were, of the Amendments to Clause 41.
  Mr. Graham Page: We have not had much entertainment, hilarity or joy out of the Bill through all its stages. We have plodded on. It has been an extremely difficult and dull Bill to deal with from that point of view and I am very sad that the one Clause out of which we got a bit of fun is to be removed from the Bill. It was a gem of legislation saying:
  "For purposes of sections 77 to 85 of the … Act 1845 the use of the premises as a place of worship or minister's house, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not, shall be deemed to be the railway and the trustees shall be deemed to be the railway company."
  That was a choice piece of legislation and brought a gleam of light and joy to this wholly miserable Bill. Now we are to be deprived even of that. This little bit of humour is to be removed from the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 1.—(ENFRANCHISEMENT OR EXTENSION BY SUB-TENANTS.)
  Lords Amendment No. 53: In page 73, line 47, leave out from "then" to end of line 4 on page 74 and insert:
  "in relation to the Crown interest and the person to whom it belongs this Schedule shall have effect as it has effect in relation to other landlords and their interests, but with the appropriate authority having power to act as reversioner or otherwise for purposes of this Schedule on behalf of that person:
  Provided that paragraph 4(1)(a) above shall not apply to the execution of a conveyance or lease on behalf of the person to whom a Crown interest belongs."
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Amendment covers a technical defect in paragraph 14 of the First Schedule which was added on Report. This makes provision for the application of the Schedule where there is a chain of leases and one link of the chain is the Crown. Although the appropriate Crown authority under Clause 34(2) can act as the reversioner, it ought not in all cases to execute the actual conveyance or substituted lease. For example, in the case of land vested in the Duchy of Lancaster, although the appropriate authority is the Chancellor of the Duchy, execution should continue to be by the Queen under the seal of the Duchy or County Palatine. This is a form of transfer and it is appropriate that it should be provided for in this Statute.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 2.—(PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 17 AND 18 OF THIS ACT.)
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 55: In page 77, line 2, leave out "by reason" and insert "under or in respect".
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is a drafting Amendment to meet a point raised by the Law Society.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 56: In page 77, line 4, leave out from "sale" to "shall" in line 6 and insert:
  "and compensation is paid in respect of it in accordance with section 17 or 18 of this Act (whether possession is obtained under that section or without any application for possession), the sum received".
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this we are to discuss Lords Amendments No. 57 and No. 58.
  Mr. MacDermot: These, again, are little more than drafting Amendments to meet points raised by the Law Society.
  Mr. Graham Page: On several occasions the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that Amendments have been inserted to satisfy points raised by the Law Society. As a member of that Society, I thank him for giving attention to the representations made by that source. I am glad that they have been useful and constructively useful in the framing of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 3.—(VALIDITY OF TENANT'S NOTICES, EFFECT ON LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 ETC. AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY.)
  Lords Amendment No. 59: In page 81, line 22, leave out "the boundaries of".
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The purpose of this Amendment is again to meet a point of practice raised by the Law Society. It is that the requirement of the leaseholder to identify, as the Bill now stands, the "boundaries" of the property covered by his claim, of enfranchisement for or an extension. It would seem that he might be expected to produce either a map or a very detailed description. Normally when the leaseholder is claiming in such a case, he very often will not have a map or detailed description.
  This is not thought to be necessary now. It is sometimes required, but very
  1628
  often is not, and it was thought that the application here was a little too severe. If the Amendment is agreed to, it does not absolve the leaseholder from making quite clear just what his property is.
  For example if he is not making a claim including a garage which may be under some other arrangement sub-let to someone else, then he cannot include it in his claim and is obliged to let the landlord know that his claim does not extend to the garage, in order that the landlord, under the previous provisions of the Bill, can require the leaseholder to include it under the appropriate Clause.
  It is therefore felt that the arrangement can be quite satisfactorily left, rather than put what might be a very heavy burden upon the leaseholder, and one that is not considered necessary. Again we are grateful to the Law Society for the suggestion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 61: In page 81 line 30, leave out "seven" and insert "ten".
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This is really consequential. In the Committee of this House the residential qualification for the benefits of the Bill as set out in Clause 1 (1,b) was altered from five out of the last seven years to five out of the last ten.
  The Amendment requires the tenant, in his formal claim, to give particulars of the periods he has and has not occupied the house for the past ten years instead of the last seven.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No 62: In page 81, line 43, at end insert:
  "(3) The notice shall not be invalidated by any inaccuracy in the particulars required by this paragraph or any misdescription of the property to which the claim extends; and where the claim extends to property not properly included in the house and premises, or does not extend to property that ought to be so included, the notice may with the leave of the court, and on such terms as the court may see fit to impose, be amended so as to exclude or include that property."
  Read a second time.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 8, after 'may', insert
  'in default of agreement between the landlord and the tenant'.
  The Lords Amendment to which I seek to make this further Amendment is an Amendment to Part II of Schedule 3 which deals with the procedure on the tenant's notice. That is when the tenant gives a notice under Part I of his desire to have the freehold, or an extended lease. Here is set out the procedure which follows, the form of notice to be given, what should be in the notice and so on.
  We have been dealing in the group of Amendments with a number of detailed points which have to appear in the notice. It is very probable than on many occasions there will be errors in that notice. The Lords Amendment states what should be done if there are inaccuracies in that notice. They shall not be invalidated, but can be put right with the leave of the courts. The Amendment does not say that it can be put right by agreement of the parties. That may be thought to be implied, but the expression in this Amendment is:
  "… where the claim extends to property not properly included in the house and premises, or does not extend to property that ought to be so included, the notice may with the leave of the court … be amended …"
  We seek to insert the phrase:
  "in default of agreement between the landlord and the tenant".
  It is reasonable that the parties should be allowed to agree and the Amendment does not allow them to do so, and I feel that it means that they would have to go to the court to have the notice amended.
  Mr. Skeffington: I am sorry that at this stage I should have to disagree with the proposal of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). His Amendments would make it necessary for any inaccuracy or misdescription in the leaseholder's claim to be brought before the court, which would put a great deal of unnecessary work on the court. As the paragraph now stands, there are cases in which resort to the county court would be required—
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman seems to be dealing with an Amendment which has not been selected, the first one. We are discussing only the second.
  Mr. Skeffington: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. My note deals with both his Amendments and I was discussing the first instead of the second, which is on a narrower point, but even this makes a provision which is unnecessary and too strict. When I deal with the Lords Amendment No. 62 I will point out certain advantages to that proposal, but the hon. Gentleman's goes too far. I therefore advise the House not to accept it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lords Amendment No. 62: In page 81, line 43, at end insert:
  "(3) The notice shall not be invalidated by any accuracy in the particulars required by this paragraph or any misdescription of the property to which the claim extends; and where the claim extends to property not properly included in the house and premises, or does not extend to property that ought to be so included, the notice may with the leave of the court, and on such terms as the court may see fit to impose, be amended so as to exclude or include that property."
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  The Amendment would ensure that a leaseholder's formal claim of enfranchisement or for a 50-year extension was not invalidated by trifling errors. To have his claim so invalidated might be calamitous for him if the error were not detected until after the time for making the claim had passed. This might happen. as the Bill is now drafted, to a leaseholder who had a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1954 from his landlord terminating the long tenancy, and under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 he would then have only two months in which to counter the landlord's notice with a claim for the freehold or extension.
  The Amendment also deals with the case where a leaseholder has made a substantial error. He might have forgotten to leave out of the claim a garage which is sublet to and occupied by a neighbour, or to include the hot-water cupboard which projects under the stairs of his neighbour's house, a situation which could arise when an old house is divided vertically. Even such substantial errors may be corrected by leave of the county court and on such terms as the court imposes.
  The point of giving the court power to impose terms is that the landlord has the right under Clause 2(4) and (5) to

  1631
  demand that the leaseholder shall enfranchise the garage too or shall not enfranchise the cupboard projecting into the neighbouring house, but this right must be exercised within two months of the leaseholder's claim.
  If the leaseholder is to be allowed to correct his claim by omitting the garage, instead of having his whole claim invalidated, the court will, no doubt, insist on thhe leaseholder's accepting any demand by the landlord that he should enfranchise the garage as a valid demand to be disputed only on the physical merits and not contested on the ground that the landlord was out of time in seeking to include or exclude that part of the property.
  Mr. Graham Page: I entirely agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that inaccuracies in the notice should not invalidate the whole transaction. That is only common sense and the right way to deal with matters between the parties.
  If the tenant has left out the garage or the hot water cupboard but both parties agree that it was by mistake and that it should be included, and they are both happy that the notice should be amended, must they go to the court to get it amended? According to the Amendment, it seems they must. According to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, it seemed to me that the parties cannot do anything without the leave of the court.
  May I have an assurance that elsewhere in the Bill or in the Schedule there is provision for the parties to agree to alter a notice, or perhaps, to agree on terms if one of them may have been put to costs by the error of the other? Let there be terms between them for payment of costs as a result of that error, but, surely, they can do it without going to the court. It could be provided that they go to the court for a consent order, but cannot they do as I suggest without applying to the court?
  Mr. Skeffington: One is here trying to lessen the burden upon an enfranchiser, but it would be wrong to lessen it in such a way that it put the other party, in this case the landlord, into difficulty, which might mean that he lost a substantial part of his right.
  It would seem that in these circumstances, where anything significant occurred, the parties could easily go to the county court and get a consent order.
  1632
  There is no great difficulty. On the other hand, when one is thinking of the rights which may arise out of the transaction, in relation not only to the two parties but to others who may become possessed of the title, it seems right that for the avoidance of doubt the matter should be settled by the court so that fair play can be achieved by both parties.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: It seems that where the original landlord and lessee are at one no difficulty will arise since they can act independently of the Bill, but difficulty might arise in a case where the lessee has sold his interest with the benefit of a notice which he has already served but which turns out to be inaccurate. In those circumstances the landlord might seek to take advantage of the inaccuracy and the new lessee would not have his own right to serve a notice for another five years. For this reason the provision to enable the court to make an amendment is a valuable one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 7.—(REPEALS.)
  Lords Amendment No. 67: In Page 97, line 23, column 3, at end insert:
  "In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(d).
  In Schedule 5, in paragraph 7(3), the words from "under the Rent Acts" to "this Act"."
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment proposes two minor additions to the repeal provisions of the Bill. These are no longer needed in view of the provisions of the Measure. They are concerned with technical points, which I will explain in detail if hon. Members so desire.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Allason, Mr. MacDermot, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Skeffington, and Mrs. White; Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. MacDermot.)
  To withdraw immediately.

STANDING ORDERS (WAYS AND MEANS)
Ordered,
That the amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Ways and Means set out in the following Schedule be made.

STANDING ORDERS (WAYS AND MEANS)

  SCHEDULE
  Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business)
  Line 10, leave out 'originating in Committee of Ways and Means' and insert 'brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution'.
  Line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
  Standing Order No. 17 (Appointment of Supply and Ways and Means)
  Line 7, leave out paragraph (2) and insert—
  '(2) A Ways and Means motion may be made in the House without notice on any day, so soon as an address has been agreed to in answer to Her Majesty's Speech'.
  Standing Order No. 53 (Amendments on report).
  Line 4, at end add 'unless it has been authorised by a resolution of the House'.
  Standing Order No. 83 (Certain proceedings relating to public money).
  Line 1, leave out paragraph (1).
  Standing Order No. 84 (Procedure upon bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue).
  Leave out line 2 and insert 'to be brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution'.
  Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means motion and resolution).
  Leave out Standing Order and insert new Standing Order (Ways and Means motions) as follows:
  '(1) A Minister of the Crown may without notice make a motion for giving provisional statutory effect to any proposals in pursuance of section 42 (Collection of taxes before passing of Ways and Means resolutions) of the Finance Act 1967; and the question on such a motion shall be put forthwith.
  (2) When the question has been decided on the first of several motions upon which a bill is to be brought in for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, the question on each such further motion shall be put forthwith'.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; To be communicated to the Lords.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Gourlay.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
  Commonwealth Countries (U.K. Citizens)
  Commonwealth Countries (U.K. Citizens)
  Nigeria and Biafra (Commonwealth Peace Mission)
  Nigeria and Biafra (Commonwealth Peace Mission)
  Mauritius
  Mauritius
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  British Honduras
  British Honduras
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Anglo-Nigerian Relations
  Anglo-Nigerian Relations
  Zambia (U.K. Citizens)
  Zambia (U.K. Citizens)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Uganda (British Subjects)
  Uganda (British Subjects)
  Francistown Radio
  Francistown Radio
COAL
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  Colliery Waste (Land Reclamation)
  Colliery Waste (Land Reclamation)
  Carbon Tetrachloride
  Carbon Tetrachloride
  Uneconomic Pits (Scotland)
  Uneconomic Pits (Scotland)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Electricity and Gas (Price Increases)
  Electricity and Gas (Price Increases)
  Consett Iron and Steel Works
  Consett Iron and Steel Works
  Nationalised Steel Industry, Wales (Chairman)
  Nationalised Steel Industry, Wales (Chairman)
  Drilling Rig "Sea Gem" (Report of Inquiry)
  Drilling Rig "Sea Gem" (Report of Inquiry)
GAS
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
TECHNOLOGY
  Aircraft Industry (Government Shareholding)
  Aircraft Industry (Government Shareholding)
  Supersonic Aircraft
  Supersonic Aircraft
  Uranium Imports (Foreign Currency Cost)
  Uranium Imports (Foreign Currency Cost)
  Concord Aircraft
  Concord Aircraft
  European Airbus
  European Airbus
  British Aircraft Industry (Airframes)
  British Aircraft Industry (Airframes)
  Metric System
  Metric System
  Motor Car Manufacturers (Guarantees)
  Motor Car Manufacturers (Guarantees)
  Management Selection Limited (Costs)
  Management Selection Limited (Costs)
  Dounreay Materials Testing Reactor (Failure)
  Dounreay Materials Testing Reactor (Failure)
  British Shipping Companies (Foreign Tonnage)
  British Shipping Companies (Foreign Tonnage)
  Government Contracts (Development Areas)
  Government Contracts (Development Areas)
  Industrial Liaison Centre, Aberdeen
  Industrial Liaison Centre, Aberdeen
  Technological Development (Scotland)
  Technological Development (Scotland)
  Geddes Report
  Geddes Report
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Travel Allowance
  Travel Allowance
  Surtax
  Surtax
  Close Companies' (Taxation)
  Close Companies' (Taxation)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Short-Term Capital Gains (Revenue)
  Short-Term Capital Gains (Revenue)
  Customs Officers (Opening of Mails)
  Customs Officers (Opening of Mails)
  National Wealth
  National Wealth
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  British Petroleum Company (Government Shareholding)
  British Petroleum Company (Government Shareholding)
  Dollar Loans (Repayment)
  Dollar Loans (Repayment)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Stamp Duty (Abolition on Mortgages)
  Stamp Duty (Abolition on Mortgages)
  Industry (Government Assistance)
  Industry (Government Assistance)
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Bank of England (Court Members)
  Bank of England (Court Members)
  Brighton Foreshore (Sales)
  Brighton Foreshore (Sales)
  Public Companies (Government Directives)
  Public Companies (Government Directives)
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Office Space (Greater London)
  Office Space (Greater London)
  Tenants (Harassment By Landlords)
  Tenants (Harassment By Landlords)
  Rent Assessment Committees (Surveyors)
  Rent Assessment Committees (Surveyors)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Option Mortgage Scheme (Applications)
  Option Mortgage Scheme (Applications)
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Completions 1967
  Completions 1967
  Evictions (Overcrowding)
  Evictions (Overcrowding)
  District Auditors
  District Auditors
  Compulsory Purchase
  Compulsory Purchase
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land Acquisition, Sussex (Inquiry)
  Land Acquisition, Sussex (Inquiry)
  Rating (Empty Properties)
  Rating (Empty Properties)
  Water Supplies (South-East)
  Water Supplies (South-East)
  Lea Valley Regional Park
  Lea Valley Regional Park
TRANSPORT
  Urban Planning
  Urban Planning
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  National Plan
  National Plan
  School Leavers (Unemployment)
  School Leavers (Unemployment)
  Humberside Study
  Humberside Study
  Regional Studies
  Regional Studies
  Mr. Robert Willis (Correspondence)
  Mr. Robert Willis (Correspondence)
  PERIM
  PERIM
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dr. Kachenko
  Dr. Kachenko
  Police Officers (Court Duties)
  Police Officers (Court Duties)
  Identikit Pictures (Colour Experiment)
  Identikit Pictures (Colour Experiment)
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
BOARD OF TRADE
  Footwear (Imports)
  Footwear (Imports)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Exports to Pakistan)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Exports to Pakistan)
  Exports
  Exports
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  University College, Salisbury (African Students)
  University College, Salisbury (African Students)
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Numbers)
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Numbers)
  Family Planning Overseas
  Family Planning Overseas
SCOTLAND
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Tariff Increases)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Tariff Increases)
  Option Mortgages (Applications)
  Option Mortgages (Applications)
  Orkney and Shetland (Secretary of State's Visit)
  Orkney and Shetland (Secretary of State's Visit)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (BOARD APPOINTMENTS)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (BOARD APPOINTMENTS)
  ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS
  ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS
  HOUSEWIVES' OMBUDSWOMAN
  HOUSEWIVES' OMBUDSWOMAN
  MINISTER OF LABOUR (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF LABOUR (SPEECH)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PUBLICLY OWNED INDUSTRIES)
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PUBLICLY OWNED INDUSTRIES)
  MR. CHAPMAN PINCHER
  MR. CHAPMAN PINCHER
  LIFE PEERAGES ACT 1958
  LIFE PEERAGES ACT 1958
  MISS KEENAN
  MISS KEENAN
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (FUNCTIONS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (FUNCTIONS)
  THE ARTS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  THE ARTS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  MR. PHILBY (PRESS ARTICLES)
  MR. PHILBY (PRESS ARTICLES)
  EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY
  NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS
  NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hill Sheep Subsidy (Devon Closewool Sheep)
  Hill Sheep Subsidy (Devon Closewool Sheep)
  Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1952
  Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1952
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery, Mount Scopus
  Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery, Mount Scopus
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Education (Huddersfield)
  Comprehensive Education (Huddersfield)
HOSPITALS
  Doctors from Overseas
  Doctors from Overseas
  Psychiatric Social Workers
  Psychiatric Social Workers
  Broadmoor Hospital (Commonwealth Patients)
  Broadmoor Hospital (Commonwealth Patients)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Wages Regulation Orders
  Wages Regulation Orders
  Apprenticeships (Sunderland)
  Apprenticeships (Sunderland)
  Disabled Persons Register (Medical Certificate Fee)
  Disabled Persons Register (Medical Certificate Fee)
  Unemployment (Ardrossan, Largs, Rothesay and Stevenston)
  Unemployment (Ardrossan, Largs, Rothesay and Stevenston)
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Licences (Almshouses and Old People's Homes)
  Licences (Almshouses and Old People's Homes)
POST OFFICE
  Services (Hastings)
  Services (Hastings)
  Overseas Mail (Examination)
  Overseas Mail (Examination)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Shared Lines (West Suffolk)
  Shared Lines (West Suffolk)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
ROADS
  Princess Parkway, Manchester
  Princess Parkway, Manchester
  Helsby-Frodsham By-Pass
  Helsby-Frodsham By-Pass
  A370 (Speed Limit)
  A370 (Speed Limit)
  Buchanan/Crowther Report
  Buchanan/Crowther Report
RAILWAYS
  Heathrow Airport Rail Link
  Heathrow Airport Rail Link
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Air Pollution)
  Motor Vehicles (Air Pollution)
WALES
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation

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

LORD MAIS
Alan Raymond Mais, Esquire, O.B.E., T.D., having been created Baron Mais, of Walbrook in the City of London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Crook and the Lord Coleraine.

LORD HIRSHFIELD
Desmond Barel Hirshfield, Esquire, having been created Baron Hirshfield, of Holborn in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Robens of Woldingham and the Lord Carron.
The Lord Milner of Leeds—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE LATE EARL STANHOPE
2.26 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would wish to pay tribute to-day to the memory of a much revered ex-Leader of the House and to a real benefactor to our country—I refer to the late Lord Stanhope. He came from a family which has given high service to the State for many generations and which has produced a most uncommon ration of remarkable men, be it in politics, science or literature. Among his forbears was the great Lord Chesterfield and the third Earl, known as "Citizen Stanhope".
As a young man, Lord Stanhope served in the Army with distinction and gallantry in the First World War, gaining the D.S.O. and the M.C. In 1918, on
1514
his return from the war, he was appointed to represent the War Office in your Lordships' House. Thereafter he filled a wide variety of offices, culminating in membership of the Cabinet from 1936 to 1940. At the time of his death, he was the oldest of the ex-Leaders of your Lordships' House.
He had a passionate interest in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich and gave to it generously of his time and enthusiasm. It is he whom we must thank, together with one other, for the existence of that Museum to-day. But there is another reason why I am sure we shall wish to remember Lord Stanhope. In 1959, the late Lord Stanhope, by a splendid stroke of generosity, gave Chevening, his noble home, its park and an endowment fund for the use of the nation. The estate was to be occupied either by the Prime Minister of the day or by someone, either Minister or member of the Royal family, for example, who was to be designated by the Prime Minister. I, as Lord Privy Seal, have at present the honour to be Chairman of the Trustees of this fine estate and therefore it is a special pleasure to me to testify to the beauties of Chevening.
While we must all sorrow at the passing of Lord Stanhope, and feel sad at the extinction of the two historic titles of Stanhope and Chesterfield, we have cause for gratitude in his wonderful and generous gift. We can all respect the memory of the late Earl.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House has spoken eloquently of Lord Stanhope's distinguished career. Even a cursory glance through Who's Who shows the many high Offices of State which Lord Stanhope held, culminating in his appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty and subsequently as Leader of your Lordships' House. In some ways it is rather sad that there should be so few of his contemporaries to pay tribute to him this afternoon and so few in your Lordships' House to speak with first-hand knowledge of Lord Stanhope when he was in his prime. There are, of course, a few who knew at first hand the gallant and distinguished service he gave in the First World War. My noble friend Lord Salisbury is one, because they were both serving in the Grenadier Guards at that time. There are certainly a number of

1515
Naval officers, retired and otherwise, who remember him as First Lord of the Admiralty and recall with admiration the work he did there.
I share with the noble Earl the Leader of the House the admiration for the work he did for the National Maritime Museum. It was largely due to his inspiration and to the way that he directed the benevolence of Sir James Caird that we have the National Maritime Museum—that magnificent Museum—as it stands to-day. I think there are still a few noble Lords who were here when he was Leader of the House, but even those who remember him when we first joined this House after the war can recapture something of the distinguished life of Lord Stanhope. He came from a family notable for its service to this country, and he followed the example of his forbears in his devotion to his country and in the many services he rendered to it. He did not seem to me, viewing it from the standpoint of a young man just entering politics, to be one of those people who was at all interested in his own advancement or, in the modern jargon, the sort of image that he created. He seemed to be, and I am sure he was, a man who by tradition served his country, and not for the rewards that he was likely to get, but regardless of the political misfortunes which might from time to time befall him and intent only on doing his job as best he might.
It is sad, too, I think, that there is no heir to this ancient title or to the property. But it was typical of Lord Stanhope to make so imaginative a gesture as to give his house and his estate to the nation with the wish that it might be used for a member either of the Government or of the Royal Family. My Lords, I think it will be a bad day for this country when there are no longer men like Lord Stanhope, brought up in the tradition of duty, service and unselfishness.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to associate myself and noble Lords on these Benches with what the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition have said about the late Lord Stanhope. There can be few people who have given such an example of a life of
1516
service to their country as Lord Stanhope did. I think one can say that he showed himself to be the best type of cultivated, civilised and able man, prepared to work a great deal to no great gain and profit but merely for the sake of his country. There must be few noble Lords who have sat in this House for as long as he did; I think Lord Stanhope was a member of the House for 65 or 66 years, which must be something of a record. But I am sure the thing by which he will be permanently remembered—and both noble Lords have referred to it—is his magnificent gift of Chevening to the nation, with a sum of money for its upkeep.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION: INTAKE OF INDIANS FROM KENYA
2.33 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the accuracy of statements in the Press to the effect that, in addition to the present net annual intake of 50,000 Commonwealth immigrants per annum, up to 100,000 Indians from Kenya may shortly be expected to come to settle in this country.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord asks if it is possible to confirm the accuracy of certain Press statements. The answer is, No, my Lords.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a couple of further questions, in order to try to elucidate this matter which is, after all, an important question on which the House has the right to information? Is it not owing to a wholly unintentional gap in our legislation that at present Asians in Kenya are able to obtain United Kingdom passports which exempt them from control under the Commonwealth Immigrations Act? Seeing that we have over 500,000 unemployed, and a number of insoluble problems arising from immigration policy, would it not be in the interests of our present population, both native and immigrant, to close this unintentional gap and in the meantime to instruct High

1517
Commissioners to issue United Kingdom passports only in exceptional circumstances?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is an important problem. It is also a difficult problem, and a complex one, both to the countries and to the individuals concerned. But I really do not feel that it would be useful, either to the countries or to the individuals, if I were to speculate on the result of what the noble Lord has referred to as an unintentional gap in our legislation. It is a matter with which Her Majesty's Government are very concerned at the present time, and I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we are to face another humiliation in the Common Market, we should try to keep the Commonwealth with us, rather than carry on in this way, because we may need them in the near future?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, while the noble Lord said that he cannot confirm statements in the Press, can he give an estimate of the number of Asians in Kenya who appear to have the right to enter this country without restriction?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are possibly in Kenya something of the order of 200,000 people who hold United Kingdom passports and who are exempt from the control of the Act to which the noble Lord referred. How many of those would wish to try to enter this country I cannot, of course, estimate.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in view of the obvious injustice of this difference between the rights of Asians in Asia and Asians who happen to be resident in East Africa—something which indeed was not contemplated when legislation was passed in this country—would the noble Lord say whether it is possible to do anything about this anomaly without the passing of additional legislation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that it is quite right to describe this as an anomaly. It is an historical fact that there are these people holding United Kingdom passports who do not hold any passport from, and have no citizenship rights of, any other country.
1518
It is not a simple problem to deal with, nor, as I have said, do I think it helpful to the people concerned to speculate upon it at the present time.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to answer the question which I asked? In order to deal with this matter, is it necessary for legislation to be passed, or would it be possible for the Government to take steps by order or by administrative action under the existing law? Would it be necessary for fresh legislation to be passed for this matter to be dealt with?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would depend upon what the Government wished to do; it would depend upon the objective which they wished to secure. This is one of the matters which is under consideration at the present time.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while I agree with my noble friend that it would be unwise to speculate as to numbers, can he assure the House that there will be no possibility of large numbers coming in without a check being taken at the ports of entry so that as time goes on we should know how many are in fact coming from Kenya to this country?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords; there will be a check.

RACE RELATIONS ACT
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decision has been made regarding the introduction of a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I made a statement on July 26 in which I said that the Government had decided in principle to extend the Race Relations Act to deal with racial discrimination in employment, housing, insurance, credit facilities and a wider range of public places. I cannot at present add anything to that statement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that statement, may I ask my noble friend, in view of, I think, a growing racial feeling in this country and the

1519
urgency of this issue, whether he will take every possible step to get the Government to introduce the Bill at the first opportunity?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware that I cannot anticipate the gracious Speech from the Throne, and the assurance which I gave, and which I have repeated now, ought to suit his purpose.

KIDNEY PATIENTS' HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what provision is to be made for additional isolated accommodation in hospitals for patients who have had kidney operations, in view of their particular liability to infection.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I understand that my noble friend is particularly concerned about the accommodation to be provided for patients who have undergone kidney transplantation. This kind of operation is only now emerging from the research stage, and there are many problems still to be solved before it becomes into general use. The precise requirements, including the degree of isolation necessary, need further study. My noble friend may be assured that Her Majesty's Government are continuing to take expert advice on the whole subject of kidney transplantation, and will act on the advice they receive.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that in many hospitals after the operations these cases of transplanted kidneys are accommodated in general surgical wards, and that the danger of infection to them in such wards is very great indeed? Indeed, cases of infection are occurring with serious results. Is my noble friend also aware that doctors who have patients in these wards are not able to visit them at their beds, because they are serving
1520
in other wards and might bring in infection? In view of these circumstances, will the Government take very urgent action to secure isolated accommodation for these cases?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I give the noble Lord a little background. A meeting of experts was convened by the Medical Research Council in June of this year, and this meeting concluded that there was not enough knowledge available at the present time for them to assess the degree of control which should be exercised over the transplanted patients' environment in order to keep down infection. Further studies on this question are being pursued. The point is that in the early days of research into renal transplant the patient was subjected to massive doses of radiation by X-ray to suppress the body's natural rejection of foreign tissues. This made the patient highly susceptible to infection. The effect of suppressing the natural rejection now can be achieved by drugs which can so control the body's defence mechanism against infection that it is not wholly inactivated.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when it is likely that the results of these inquiries will be known?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is a statistical question: when there is a valid sample.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of 27th July last.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Message of 27th July be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper is the customary Motion which will permit this Private Bill to continue its progress through Parliament in the coming Session. A similar Motion was agreed to in another place on the 27th July. I beg to move.

1521
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Report of Amendments to be received.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1:
The Countryside Commission for Scotland
1.—
(4) The Commission shall be comprised of—

(a) persons appointed after consultation with such associations of local authorities
1522
as appear to the Secretary of State to represent local planning authorities;

(b) persons appointed after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of countryside interests; and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may think fit.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to subsection (4):
"( ) Persons appointed under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above shall not be fewer than those appointed under paragraphs (a) and (c) combined."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment is somewhat similar to one that I moved on the Committee stage of this Bill, but the one I moved then was faulted in one respect. I had presumed that the Countryside Commission had always consisted of its maximum number of possible members, 14, and so I moved an Amendment that category (b) should be at least seven of them. I have now expressed this as a percentage, which gets over this difficulty.
When I moved this Amendment at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was kind enough to reply not only to the Amendment as I had it down, but also to the Amendment as I intended to have it down, and the gist of his argument against the Amendment, as I should have liked to have it, was that although the Secretary of State had every intention of more or less following these proportions—possibly even bettering them—his discretion should not be fettered. I think the Secretary of State's discretion is already fettered by Parliament in other directions, so I would have thought there is nothing very much in that point. I should have thought that it was much more important to remember that the present Secretary of State is not indestructible, and that subsequent Secretaries of State may not remember the undertaking given in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he comes to make new appointments to the Countryside Commission.
I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State will follow very much the proportions suggested in my Amendment, and will thereby fully vindicate Lord Hughes's undertaking. But if we think that the Countryside Commission will be a body that will last a long time—and I personally believe and hope that this

1523
will be so—surely there would have been no harm in writing this provision into the Bill. The people included under category (b) not only provide the raw material with which the Countryside Commission are concerned—the country and the land itself—but also, presumably, include the people who will use it; that is to say, members of the ramblers' associations and similar bodies. I should have thought it only right that, between them, they should have at least the majority on the Commission. I would have thought, therefore, that as the Secretary of State agrees to the principle behind my Amendment, and as I think he is bound to admit that there may some day be a completely new and different Secretary of State, and as this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill (because it sets out the Commission who will be dealing with this particular Act in nearly all its functions) it is only right that we should write into the Bill this particular provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Duke was good enough to send to me a list of the Amendments which he intended to table at this stage of the Bill, and because of that I was able to break into his otherwise free days at Aviemore by letting him know the action which the Government contemplated taking on these Amendments. If I remember rightly, that led to a letter of some six foolscap pages. Therefore what I am going to say in due course on any of his Amendments will not come as news to the noble Duke. But I have no doubt it is felt by him to be desirable that what he knows privately should be known publicly by other people through the medium of your Lordships' House.
Much as I respect the noble Duke's tenacity in seeking to amend this clause, I must oppose any Amendment of this sort which attempts to write in a restriction on the Secretary of State's discretion. What I said about this matter in Committee in relation to the noble Duke's earlier Amendment still applies, including the forecast I then made about the likely pattern of membership of the Commission.
1524
I can assure the noble Duke not only I but other Scottish Ministers will be quite happy to advise any future Scottish Secretary of State of these undertakings, and if, in the distant future, there should be an Administration from the other side of the House, the noble Duke is a sufficiently young man to be able to remind a Secretary of State from that Party of the undertakings to which he would expect them to adhere. In these circumstances, I hope that he will not find it unduly difficult not to press the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his answer, although it is somewhat unsatisfactory from my point of view. But as we are agreed on the basic thinking behind this Amendment, I think the best thing I can do is to withdraw it, or beg the leave of the House to withdraw it, and promise the noble Lord that if an Administration from this side—or perhaps, I should say, when an Administration from this side—comes into power, if they desert this particular thesis I shall certainly remind them of the fact.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Powers of the Commission]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment is simply to avoid any doubt there might otherwise be about the Commission's legal capacity to buy, rent or build offices. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
"(i) for the purpose of providing themselves with office or other accommodation in connection with the exercise of any of their functions, to acquire land in manner provided by section 6(1)(a) below, to erect and maintain buildings or other structures thereon, and, when the land is no longer required for such purpose, to dispose of it in manner provided by the said section 6;".—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will clarify one question? This Amendment deals with two aspects: first, the power for the Commission to acquire land for offices; and secondly, the way such land will be disposed of if it is no longer required. The Amendment refers to Section 6, which deals with the methods of disposal, one way being by sale. Is it the intention of the Government that administratively they should

1525
issue a directive to the Commission that, in the event of sale, the previous owner should have the first opportunity of purchase? As the Minister knows, that governs various other aspects of land acquisition and disposal in respect of other Government departments. It seems to me only right that it should be an administrative requirement on the Commission.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is referring to a condition which applies when land is acquired compulsorily. We do not contemplate that the Commission will be obtaining the land or the buildings for their office other than by the ordinary processes. We do not contemplate for one moment that they will be acquiring their offices by a compulsory order; so the undertaking would not arise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Areas of special planning control]:
2.54 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of the General Development Order any development or any class of development which it is proposed to undertake in an area of special planning control shall be submitted to the local planning authority for planning permission."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment is also somewhat similar to one I moved at the Committee stage. But it has one very fundamental difference, that is, that not only will public bodies be caught by it, but previously exempt private buildings, such as small agricultural buildings, which are outside planning control at the moment, will be caught also. The Amendment I moved at the Committee stage was criticised by the noble Lord on, I think, three grounds. The first was that it would be an intolerable burden on public bodies to have to seek planning permission; secondly, that similar private development was in certain cases exempt; that is to say, the small agricultural buildings; and, thirdly, that it was unlikely to arise in Scotland owing to the position of the Secretary of State as the head of almost every conceivable nationalised industry and organisation in Scotland, and that therefore
1526
such things as Cow Green or Abingdon could not arise in Scotland. I have now got over the second point of this criticism by drawing into the orbit of the Amendment exempt agricultural buildings and suchlike things. I think this was a very valid point, and I have never quite understood the theory behind the planning Acts that large agricultural buildings need planning permission, while small agricultural buildings are always so beautiful that they do not need any planning permission at all. It seems to me that this is a highly dubious theory, and one that should be altered as soon as possible. I have therefore included them in the scope of this Amendment.
With regard to the first criticism, that it was an intolerable burden on public bodies, I do not agree with that at all, because my Amendment applies only in these areas of special planning control, which we gather are going to be few and far between, and therefore public bodies ought not to be encouraged to make any form of development except where absolutely necessary. I should have thought that the number of cases arising, even if there is not this Amendment, would be small, and if there is this Amendment it would be very small indeed, and therefore extremely desirable.
The third argument—that it was unlikely to arise in Scotland—I also do not agree with. Secretaries of State are hardly knights in shining armour—I am not referring to the present one, but to Secretaries of State as a genus throughout the times, or at any rate since the war—so far as planning is concerned, if we are to believe they really look into every building that every public authority puts up in Scotland. There are, of course, certain public authorities which are not directly under the control of the Secretary of State, such as the Gas Board. So presumably it would be possible for the Gas Board to erect a building without the Secretary of State having foreknowledge. I therefore feel that the noble Lord's third argument against my Amendment hardly applies at all.
I should like to point out that the pressures on space are increasing in Scotland, and although so far the public bodies have probably behaved rather better in this respect than in England—at any rate, there seem to have been fewer major outcries—I do not think this

1527
will go on for very much longer. I think that perhaps re-zoning of the Scott country is the start of this thoroughly undesirable trend. Also, one has only to look at many lines of pylons to realise how incredibly badly sited they are, and one would have thought that for a small extra cost they could have been sited infinitely better. I fully realise that to bury high tension electricity wires, except in the most exceptional circumstances, is so expensive as to be almost prohibitive, but I would think it unnecessary to site pylons in quite such conspicuous positions as they so often are.
I should like to warn the English and the Welsh, who may be feeling rather smug because this Bill does not apply to them, that in the next Session they will probably get a similar Bill, and the chances are that it will be based on this Bill, and that therefore the public bodies may still get away with this in England and Wales as well as in Scotland.
Finally, just to show that it is not only me but also a lot of other people who are becoming extremely worried about this problem, perhaps I may quote from an article in the Daily Mail of Monday July 31 of this year. It is headed:
"The Spoilers. Must this destruction of Britain's beauty go on?"
It reads:
"'One day', says Professor Colin Buchanan, 'we may wake up to a sudden realisation that the country is no longer worth living in.
'The countryside could be rolled flat by the cars of millions anxious to escape from the towns. Networks of power lines and highways could criss-cross the whole country'."
It is a long article, and so I will not bore your Lordships by reading the whole of it. But that was said by Professor Colin Buchanan, who I think is a man for whom we all have great admiration and whose opinion ought to be respected by all of us, including the Government. The article goes on to say:
"Who are the real villians among the Spoilers? The service industries, the Government departments, the 'Statutory Undertakers' as they are so ironically called. For they, unlike anyone else, have a high degree of immunity from planning control."
Then the article goes on to explain about Abingdon. I spoke about Abingdon at the Committee stage, and I will not bore your Lordships by talking about Abingdon again. But then the article says:
1528
"Take the Electricity Board who are masters at riding roughshod over other people's interests. They employed a brilliant device for getting their countrywide grid systems exactly where they wanted them…irrespective of whether they damaged the country's beauty.
"They asked for approval of the position of each pylon in the grid individually. To oppose them was to suggest ruining the whole alignment of the grid. The cost, of course, would have been fantastic. No argument could support it.
"And as Graham Ashworth, head of the Civic Trust for the North-West, says: 'No doubt many lies have been told about the relevant costs of re-alignments and under-grounding'."
This article concludes:
"How is the spoiling to be stopped? Clearly the immunity of Government Departments and Service undertakings from ordinary planning control has got to come to an end. But more—much more—is needed if Britain's natural beauty is to be preserved."
I am not going anything like so far as this article. All I am suggesting is that it must come in these areas of special planning control, which we are told are going to be extremely few. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Secretary of State already has power under Article 4 of the General Development Order to restrict permitted development, so it is not necessary to write that into Clause 9. As the noble Duke has said, the Amendment which he moved on the last stage was not in exactly these terms, and he has now amended it to bring into the effects of his Amendment the permitted private development. While this may seem to the noble Duke to be justice as between the private sector and the public sector, it is not the sort of "justice" that we can possibly put in at this stage of the Bill. Matters of this kind are dealt with only after the most careful discussion with the interests involved. The categories of development which are exempted by the General Development Order from the need for planning permission were carefully worked out in consultation with the various interests concerned, and I say, without any qualification, that the Secretary of State would wish to consult those same interests again before making

1529
any substantial change in the arrangement, far less the sweeping change which the Amendment proposes.
For instance, I doubt whether the noble Duke has obtained the consent of the local authority associations or even the Scottish National Farmers' Union, to name only two of those who are so vitally concerned with private permitted development. Notwithstanding his attempt to bring the private side into line with the public side, he has made it perfectly clear that his principal objection still remains to the public side having an exemption from this planning control, and I am sorry he still seems as unhappy about it as he was in Committee. I really cannot add much, except to give the assurance that, quite apart from the statutory planning controls, there are adequate administrative arrangements in Scotland which safeguard the position and ensure full consideration of any major developments proposed by the statutory undertakers, including a public inquiry, if that is appropriate. In reading the extract from what Professor Buchanan said, I thought it was singularly inappropriate to refer to what the Electricity Boards may or may not have done South of the Border, because if there is any type of public body which stands to be commended for the way in which they have regarded amenity in Scotland, it is the electricity undertakings. I think particularly of the care which has always been exercised by the North of Scotland Hydo-Electric Board, and I have no doubt that the South of Scotland Electricity Board acts in a similar manner.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I accept a lot of what the noble Lord has said about the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, but I feel he has only to look at the Perthshire Garry, and also at the siting of some of the lines of pylons into Tummel Village, for instance. to realise that this care has not always been exercised.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, everybody, including the Electricity Boards, learns as time passes, and I doubt very much whether there is anything which the Board has done in recent years to which anyone would take exception. It could be argued that electricity in the North of Scotland is fractionally more expensive that it otherwise would have been
1530
because of the care which was taken at all times to have proper regard to the amenity factor as well as other factors. There is something else which Professor Buchanan may not have taken into account in writing that article, which is that in the Countryside Bill we have inserted Clause 66, which imposes a statutory duty on every Minister, every Government Department and every public body to
"have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
That is something which has not been done before in these terms, and it is a duty which we shall be drawing to the attention of all public bodies when we advise them of the establishment of the Countryside Commission and of the special requirements in the areas of special planning control.
I have no doubt that what has been done by the Government will achieve exactly what the noble Duke desires. He will have no cause for complaint—or, shall I say, no reasonable cause for complaint; and as the noble Duke is a reasonable man he would not wish to have any other cause for complaint. In these circumstances I do not feel I am doing the noble Duke any injustice when I say I am unable to accept his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask one question, simply for information, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said? He referred to the administrative arrangements which safeguard the position as regards any major development on the part of public undertakings. If I ever knew, I am afraid I have now forgotten what a "major development" is, and I think it would be relevant to this debate for him to remind your Lordships what constitutes a major development in this connection. We certainly do not want to over-synchronise in this matter, but where there are areas of special planning control and areas of special beauty one would like to feel that they are completely safeguarded.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, while the reference is to "statutory undertakers" I doubt very much whether there is a statutory definition of what is a "major development". I think this might be

1531
capable of changing from one circumstance to another. What in one case might obviously be a major development because of its cost and widespread effect, in another case might be regarded as a major development although it cost a great deal less or was not over such a wide area, but simply because of its repercussions on a particular number of people. I am speaking completely off the cuff on this matter. I am expressing what I think is a common-sense view of the way in which this would be acted upon, but a major development will be decided from time to time as circumstances require. Obviously all the big, expensive schemes automatically will fall into that category. In size, in value, there will be proposals above the particular line which will automatically be included. There may be others below that line which in some circumstances might be regarded as "major" and in other circumstances might not be so regarded. I am afraid I cannot go beyond that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I do not like the thought of withdrawing this Amendment, because I feel it is so vital. I agree that in Scotland the question does not arise to the same extent, but I feel that if the English Bill is going to be founded in any way on this Bill it is essential that the point should be safeguarded in the English Bill. I realise, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, cannot comment on that at the moment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, should we not perhaps be optimistic, rather than pessimistic, and if there is to be an English Bill and if it is to be modelled on the Scottish Bill should we not at least hope that they will accept Clause 66 as well?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, while I agree that Clause 66 is of great help, I do not think it covers the points entirely. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, really agrees with me about that. I feel that as this clause applies only to special development areas, areas of special planning control, I would rather it was negatived than that I withdrew it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 [Commission to consult with local planning authorities on access requirements of their areas]:
3.11 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), after "authorities" to insert:
"and with such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of owners and occupiers of land".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may couple with Amendment No. 2 Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. During our consideration in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, proposed that in assessing access requirements and possibilities the Countryside Commission should be required to consult representatives of owners or occupiers of land in addition to local planning authorities, and I then undertook to move a suitable Amendment at this stage. The noble Baroness's proposal was that the consultation should be made with persons representative of owners and occupiers of individual local planning authority areas. I then said that we thought that it would be preferable that the consultation should normally be with bodies well known to be representative of landowners and occupiers in Scotland generally. Bodies like the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union have their own local committees and would thus be able to comment from the local as well as the national aspect. This procedure would also free the Commission from having to make a somewhat difficult and invidious choice as to which individuals were representative of owners and occupiers in particular areas. Discussions which we have had since the noble Baroness raised this point in July suggest that the proposal which is now incorporated in these three Amendments will result in effective consultation taking place. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, after ("authorities") insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having paid such very good attention to the Amendment which I moved on Committee stage. May I just remind him in connection with appointments on committees that in the various consultations which he has with

1533
authorities, such as the National Farmers' Union or the Women's Rural Institutes, there are two sexes and perhaps he would see that a certain number of ladies are included among those appointed to the Commission. I thank him very much for the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord for taking so much trouble to meet us on this matter, and I hope he will bear in mind my noble friend's plea about the ladies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. In relation to the plea which was put to me, all I would say is that I realise that I ignore the noble Baroness's repeated plea at my peril.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 11, leave out "in their areas".—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("as respects their areas").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Access Agreements
13.—(1) A local planning authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State make an access agreement with any person having an interest in land in the area of the authority whereby the provisions in that behalf of this Part of this Act shall apply to the land.
(3) An access agreement may be made either irrevocably or subject to such provisions for revocation or variation as may be specified in the agreement.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may" and insert:
"shall if requested by the owner and occupier".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, considerable concern is expressed in the poorer counties. I may say that in my own county of Inverness-shire the rates are already around 19s. Much of the expenditure involved will occur in these poorer counties. As a member of the
1534
Inverness Finance Committee, I am going to find myself in considerable difficulty in deciding what expenditure should take place. I myself will be looking for agreement with Ross-shire and I can see their finance committee being very chary about approving possible resolutions coming from the Ross-shire planning authority, even if they get through the Ross-shire planning authority.
I should like to see some compulsion put upon local authorities to make them approve of agreements with owners and occupiers. They can compel, if they so wish, agreements, or make orders, and owners and occupiers of course have a right of appeal to a public inquiry and the matter will eventually be adjudicated upon by the Secretary of State. Would it not therefore be reasonable that the same position should apply to the owner and occupier, and let the local authority go to a public inquiry, if so required, and still have a right of adjudication by the Secretary of State? I can see considerable difficulties in getting agreements through the local authorities. I know there are powers later in the Bill that the Commission should try to influence them, but I am at a loss to see how we can get these through unless there is more compulsion put on the local authority. I hope the noble Lord, if he cannot accept this Amendment, will give us some answer on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Burton.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot accept this Amendment, but I am quite certain I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Burton. We must in the first instance remember that in this clause we are considering access agreements, and I stress the word "agreements". The Amendment proposes that one party should be in a position to compel the other party to make an agreement. This, on the face of it at least, seems to be a negation of the basic concept of what an agreement is. I am quite apprised, however, of what the noble Lord wishes. He is concerned with what happens when a local authority is unwilling to make an agreement although all the circumstances would appear to indicate that it is desirable that an agreement should be made.

1535
The answer to the question is twofold. First of all, the Countryside Commission are charged to keep under review the overall adequacy of public access to open country for open air recreation. The owner or occupier could thus ask the Commission to bring their influence to bear on the unwilling local authority. However, they may do so without the local authority ceasing to be unwilling. In those circumstances the Secretary of State has powers under Clause 14(7) to make an access order or to direct the local planning authority to make one; and I would emphasise—and I think the noble Lord has not appreciated this effect of the power—that the provisions for making orders are not designed to deal solely with unwilling owners but apply equally to unwilling planning authorities. It would therefore be open to any owner or occupier to apply to the Secretary of State to use these powers, which of course he would do only after consulting the local planning authority and the Commission. The safeguards of Clause 14(2) would naturally apply to ensure that an order was in fact necessary, and the owner's position as regards compensation would be fully safeguarded. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will accept that the compulsion which he wishes as a last resort to be able to apply to a local authority does exist in the Bill as it stands, and that the Amendment therefore is unnecessary.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I do not know whether it is fully appreciated how much it is going to cost the country as a whole if these agreements are implemented. Having tried to work out a little budget in regard to Ross-shire, I have been appalled at the expense which will be involved on even the simplest of agreements. That is one aspect. So far as the Minister's reply is concerned, we all know from reading the Bill of the number of cases and different classes where agreements are more advantageous than orders. I am therefore rather appalled to know that if a local authority does not agree it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to make an order. I think this would also affect the owner and occupier. I am most hesitant about withdrawing this Amendment. I do not know whether the Minister could satisfy me on those points before I do so.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, what the noble Lord asked for was that it should be possible to apply compulsion to an unwilling planning authority, and I have directed his attention to the fact that it is possible to apply compulsion to an unwilling planning authority with the same sort of safeguards before an order is made as there would be in the case of an unwilling private owner. There is complete equality of treatment as between the private individual and the public body, and this seems to me to be completely equitable.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think this is of particular importance in the poorer counties, so I would ask that the Secretary of State should take into account the fact that the 25 per cent. which the local planning authority would have to find if an access order were made against it at the behest of one of the owners or occupiers concerned could in many cases mean a substantial increase in the rates. This might be a real burden on that community. Surely, if that is the case the Secretary of State would hesitate to make these orders—at least, I think he should hesitate to do so. But in many cases these will probably be just the places where these access orders are most needed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in deciding that the rate of grant should be 75 per cent., a much more generous grant than is normally given to local authorities in these ad hoc types of grant, I know that the Secretary of State has taken into account the burden which is likely to fall on local authorities. This is really quite a bit removed from the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved. After all, he is seeking to compel local authorities to do certain things, and I have pointed out that although they do not propose to compel them in the way that he asks, they can be compelled in other circumstances.
But all of these things must be taken into account. Obviously the Secretary of State would have to weigh which was the greater advantage to the community as a whole—having an access order with its resulting cost from national and local funds, or not having an access order. I do not admit that they are likely, but I cannot rule out the possibility that occasionally circumstances might occur

1537
where the cost was an important factor to be taken into account. Having said all that, I must come back to the point that there is really nothing at all wrong with the form by which compulsion should be applied to an unwilling local authority.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend's point would not be met perfectly simply by administrative action. If I understand my noble friend correctly, what he is asking is that while, if a local planning authority wants to make an access agreement, the owner is bound to enter into negotiations with that authority, if the owner wants to make an access agreement the local authority may decline to enter into negotiations with him. I should have thought that this could be overcome quite simply by a circular indicating to local authorities that they should be willing to discuss with owners any plans they might have for making an access agreement. I should have thought that this would get over the entire difficulty, which undoubtedly seems a little one-sided as it stands at present.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have no difficulty in giving the assurance that the noble Lord asks on this point. This is the sort of thing which will be done. But, with respect, it does not quite meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has raised. He is not really visualising the circumstance where an authority refuses to enter into negotiations. That may never in fact take place. An authority might enter into negotiations but then not carry them out to the logical conclusion of making an agreement. In those circumstances, if the private owner is so absolutely certain that there ought to have been an agreement, he can, if he feels so strongly about it, follow the course to which I have directed attention—that of asking the Secretary of State to make an order. The planning authority officials are just as likely as anybody else to be able to advise their people what are the chances of the Secretary of State making an order, whether this is the sort of case in which they think that the Secretary of State might make an order or might not. If they were absolutely certain that he would not make an order on such an application they might well just dig in their heels and do nothing
1538
about it. But in any circumstances where they thought there was a possibility that an order would be made there would be quite definite encouragement to them to get on with the job of trying to do it by agreement.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.27 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "area of the authority" to the end of the subsection. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment for two reasons: in the first place I wondered exactly what these words mean. The words concerned are:
"whereby the provisions in that behalf of this Part of this Act shall apply to the land".
They do not seem to me to have the clarity that, on the whole, the rest of this Bill has. But if they mean what I think they mean, I should have thought that if we leave them out then access agreements, but not access orders, could apply to land which was excepted land within the definition of Clause 11. This would have the advantage that where the owner or occupier and the local planning authority were all agreed that it was desirable that the public should be able to go across this land in order to get, say, to a river bank or to a public beach or something like that, an access agreement could be made applying to this land as well as to the land which was non-excepted land. If the words do not mean what I think they mean, no doubt they have some other very important meaning, in which case I shall be delighted to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Duke in this matter. When I looked at this Amendment my first reaction was to write and say that I would look to see whether it were possible to leave out these words, because it is the sort of phrase where even after one has read it three or four times one still is not sure of its meaning. But it is essentially a drafting provision on which, quite frankly, I am not prepared to express a personal view.

1539
I have very strong advice that the words in lines 28 and 29 which the noble Duke proposes should be deleted are important in determining the precise relationship between the provisions of Clauses 13, 10(1)(a) and 11. I believe there is no doubt at all about the ability of either the courts or the Civil Service to know exactly what the words mean and what they should do.
However, the noble Duke was not just anxious to clarify the wording; he was hoping that by leaving them out he would achieve a particular purpose. My advice is that if they were left out the purpose for which the noble Duke hopes would still not be achieved. Therefore, all the noble Duke would do would be to make life more difficult for those who would have to operate the Bill, without getting for himself the boon which he desires. In those circumstances I hope he will consent to this rather infelicitous wording remaining part of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should have completed my remarks on this Amendment by asking the noble Lord a question. May I ask whether under the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act 1964, local authorities can provide access for the public or make the necessary agreements with owners and occupiers of the land and thereby get over the difficulty under this Bill? During the Committee stage the noble Lord said that that Act had some relevance to the problem, but I am not sure how far local authorities can go under it. Presumably they will not get the 75 per cent. grant if they have to make the access—and it costs money to make access—under the local government Act I mentioned as they would do if they were able to do the work under this Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I thank the noble Duke for the compliment which he pays me in assuming that I have all these matters at my fingertips. I must confess that in this matter his confidence is misplaced. I have no doubt that I shall have the reply shortly, and I will come back to it, quite irrelevantly, at some future point in our discussions.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that assurance,
1540
and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "either irrevocably or". The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a discussion on access agreements during the Committee stage of this Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, felt that there was some room for improvement in the reference to irrevocable agreements. I agree with him that the Bill as drafted might suggest to the layman that the normal form of access agreement was an irrevocable one. We do not intend to suggest this, nor, on the other hand, do we wish to prevent an owner from making an irrevocable agreement if that is what he wants to do. The Amendment, I hope, now makes this quite clear, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("either irrevocably or").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should simply like to thank the noble Lord for having made this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Access orders]:
3.36 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) (a) Before making an access order a local planning authority shall, after consultation with the owners and occupiers of the land which it is proposed should be included in the order, ascertain—

(i) what public paths or rights of way are already available to the public over that land; and

(ii) the extent to which the public already have a right of access, whether by agreement or otherwise, to land adjacent to such first mentioned land,

and a statement of such facilities shall be attached to the access order when it is submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation.
(b) If the Secretary of State is satisfied as respects any land comprised within an access order that—

(i) adequate public paths or rights of way are already available to the public; or

(ii) that the public already have adequate rights of access, whether by agreement or otherwise, to land adjacent to such land—

he shall not confirm the access order in so far as it relates to such land."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come on to the clause relating to access orders, Clause 14. This matter was discussed in the other place on July 4 and in this House during the Committee stage on July 20. There is a difference of opinion on this matter between ourselves and the Government. We do not think it right that where the public already have adequate rights of access by means of public paths or rights of way, the Secretary of State should have the power to issue an order in respect of any such land. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, thought that it was not necessary to insert this Amendment, but my friends and I feel that it is necessary, and for three main reasons. It is right that the general public and the owners of the land through which access is to be given should know what process the local planning authority must go through before it can obtain an access order; secondly, that the onus should be on the local planning authority to prove beyond doubt that the existing facilities are not adequate; and thirdly that the taxpayer and the ratepayer should not be required to contribute towards the cost of providing access facilities which perhaps cannot be strictly justified.
The Amendment which we put forward is a re-draft of a similar Amendment which we discussed in this House on Committee stage. Its purpose is to require that a local planning authority shall be obliged to ascertain not only the extent of public paths and rights of way on the land in respect of which the order will apply, but also the extent to which the public have rights of access over adjacent land. Under this revised Amendment the scope of investigation would be wider before a decision to spend public money on the provision of access facilities was taken. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, has spoken of the possible cost to rural areas of many parts of this Bill, and I feel that this Amendment would provide a method of making sure that money was not paid out unless it was essential. We are not by this Amendment seeking to narrow the definition of "open country" but merely to ensure that where facilities are adequate an order shall not be confirmed. Therefore, it seems sensible to write this provision into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel this Amendment to be unnecessary. Clause 14 provides that in any case there shall be no access order unless it is approved by the Secretary of State. The clause then goes on to say that the Secretary of State shall not approve an access order if there are already in force agreements which
"in the opinion of the authority having power to make such an order adequately secure to the public access to the open country in question for open-air recreation";
and that there shall be no access order
"unless it appears to the said authority impracticable to secure the making of such an agreement or agreements."
Surely it is as well that it should be made clear that it will also be unnecessary to have an access order made if, apart from agreements, there are already existing rights of facilities which give sufficient opportunities of recreation to the public, and the question as to whether or not the existing rights are adequate is left by our Amendment entirely to the judgment of the Secretary of State. I think it would be helpful to him and his advisers because, as the noble Lord said in answer to an earlier Amendment, it is as well to make clear to the people who advise the Secretary of State all the considerations which should be in their minds in deciding whether or not it is necessary to have an access order.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we discussed a similar Amendment on the Committee stage, and she withdrew it after I had explained that although we agreed with its general spirit we did not consider that it was necessary. Clause 14(2)(a), as it now stands, clearly states the test which has to be satisfied—that is, whether the public already has adequate access to the open country in question for open-air recreation. Indeed, the clause, because of its lack of specification, is more comprehensive than the Amendment would be. It is important to note the words "open country" in line 9, because I am advised that they relate not only to the land in respect of which the access order is proposed to be made, but also to adjacent land which is open country, as

1543
is proposed in the Amendment. Therefore, we consider that the Amendment is still unnecessary.
Furthermore, as in the Amendment proposed previously, it appears to repeat a certain confusion between access by public paths or rights of way, and freedom to roam over open country with which this Part of the Bill is concerned. I would direct your Lordships' attention to the fact that freedom to roam over open country is not the same thing as freedom to walk along certain paths or rights of way. The freedom to go on a path or on a right of way may, and, in fact, generally does, restrict movement to that particular path or right of way.
Having said that, I must concede that I stated the matter too strongly at Committee stage when I said that
"…a detailed investigation of all rights of way in the area would be an unnecessary and time-consuming exercise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/7/67, col. 424.]
That is as a preliminary to the making of an access order. I have looked again at what I said then, and on reflection I think that although there is no doubt that there will be circumstances in which an investigation would, in fact, be a waste of time, I must accept that there may also be circumstances where it would be useful. We are still of the view, therefore, that it would not be right to require, as the Amendment does, that it should always be undertaken.
A local planning authority will be expected to take all relevant circumstances into account before making an access order. Clause 14(2)(b) ensures that there will already have been serious attempts to make a satisfactory agreement with the owner or occupier, and the latter will have had every opportunity of advising the authority of the extent to which access is currently permitted. Indeed, it would presumably be a major part of his case in opposing the proposed order if he could prove that this access was adequate. Even then, if an owner or occupier still considers that a local planning authority has not given due consideration to the access already available to the public in the area, he can draw this omission to the notice of the Secretary of State. But I wish to say this quite definitely. Whether he does so or not, the Secretary of State will in any event
1544
require to be satisfied that there is a properly substantiated need for more access before he confirms an order. I think this goes further, and is perhaps more emphatic, than what I said to the noble Baroness in Committee stage, when she moved the previous Amendment. I hope that she will find it, if not 100 per cent. satisfactory, a reasonable basis on which to withdraw her Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Will he just make it clear that what he has said applies to rights which are independent of any agreement? What may have caused us to put down this Amendment again is the fact that the clause as it is appears to deal only with the effect which existing agreements may have, whereas there may be all kinds of rights and facilities which are not part of any particular agreement.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not quite certain what the noble Earl has in mind.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was referring to paragraph (a) of subsection (2), which says that if access agreements are in force then no order will be made; and to paragraph (b), which says that where such agreements are not in force and if it appears to the authority that there is a chance of making them, still the order should not be made. We wanted to make sure that the order should not be made if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the rights existed anyhow without any agreement; and that where an agreement was not necessary, because the rights had always been there, it would not be necessary to make an order. It was purely for the purpose of clarifying the advice which the Secretary of State's officials would give him on this subject that the Amendment was put down. I think the noble Lord is doing his best to meet the point, but I wanted to make sure of this distinction between rights which are there with agreement, and rights which are there without any agreement.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for clarifying the matter, and I have no difficulty in saying that all rights of way will be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in those circumstances my noble friend and I would both wish to thank the noble Lord, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23:
Payments on account in special circumstances
23.—(1) At any time during the period after which, under section 21 above, compensation may be claimed in respect of the coming into operation of an order, a person claiming to be entitled to such compensation may apply to the local planning authority for a payment on account of the compensation on the ground of special circumstances; and if the authority are satisfied that such circumstances exist they shall make to him a payment on account of the compensation of such amount as they may determine.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), after the first "circumstances", to insert:
"such circumstances shall be deemed to exist if large annual payments on account of insurance are made".
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment is to the clause covering compensation when access orders are made. Normally, compensation will be assessed after the access order has been in operation for five years, and I think this is probably as fair as one can hope for in normal circumstances. But let us suppose that the owner or occupier has to make large annual payments, particularly for insurance, in order to safeguard some young plantations which are affected by being near some ground which has been made the subject of an access order. I can assure those noble Lords who do not have to do so that insuring young plantations is an extremely costly business. At the end of five years the owner or occupier would be well out of pocket, and I should have thought it might be fairer to insert into Clause 23 that one of the special circumstances which should be considered is a large annual payment for insurance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 2, after "circumstances" insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I wonder whether it may be for the convenience of the House if the next two Amendments which stand in my name are taken at the
1546
same time, as they are in somewhat similar terms.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, they cannot be taken at the same time. I am afraid they must be taken in order. But noble Lords may speak to later Amendments with leave of the House.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for that intervention, although it proved to have been phrased in the wrong way. It was my intention to ask the permission of the House to speak to his two Amendments at the same time as speaking to the one which has been moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl.
The compensation provisions for access orders need to be looked at as a whole, and they are, of course, comprised in Clause 23 at which we are now looking, and also in the three preceding clauses. There are a number of factors which need to be taken into account in making a full assessment of the level of compensation to be paid, and these ought all to be weighed against a reasonable background of experience. That is why Clause 21 specifies a period of years. I should like to point out that this is as much in the interest of the land owner as it is in the public interest.
At the same time, however, it would clearly be unreasonable to withhold the payment of compensation altogether, where interim claims can be clearly justified to the satisfaction of both sides. That is why we have the procedure in Clause 23 which will enable interim payments to be made. Such interim payments could cover a number of things—insurance premiums are only one—and I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to pick them out for special mention. Because if you pick them out, as in the noble Duke's Amendment, who is going to say what is a large payment and what is not? I am quite certain, for instance, that some of my life insurance premiums, which I consider large, would be considered extremely modest by the noble Duke. So much depends on the individual point of view. That is why we have the procedure in this form.
With regard to the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, of course if expenses are incurred and can be specified they will

1547
qualify for consideration, so to mention this in general terms in the Bill will not help one way or the other. I come to the conclusion, therefore, that it would be far better to leave the clause as it is. It is in wide terms, and therefore not restrictive; and I confirm that insurance premiums and other expenses are fully comprehended in it. Also, in what I am sure would be the unlikely event of an owner being aggrieved at the refusal of a local planning authority to make payment on account, he can, under subsection (2), appeal to the Secretary of State, who would of course make a full and impartial scrutiny of all the circumstances. Perhaps it was not appreciated that this was not a matter where the final decision as to what was equitable rested with the local authority. I am confident that, with these explanations, the noble Duke and the noble Lord will be satisfied that the position they wish to establish exists under the Bill as it stands.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his explanation. I put this Amendment down only as a basis for discussion, and I was fairly sure when I put it down that it was defective in the way that he has mentioned. But I should just like him to confirm that it is not necessary to prove hardship to qualify for "special circumstances", if I may put it that way; that any annual outgoing will be regarded as a special circumstance, and that it will not be necessary to prove that to pay this annual outgoing causes actual hardship.
LORD HUGHES: I would so confirm.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: With that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, in view of that most satisfactory statement, for which I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I do not propose to move my Amendment No. 6B.
Clause 24 [Acquisition by local planning authorities of land for public access]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I indicated in Committee (this was in column
1548
894) that the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that local planning authorities should be able to acquire land for access purposes only when it was clear that the alternatives of an access agreement or an access order would not achieve their object. The Amendment which I now move is in terms very similar to that suggested by the noble Earl, except that the wording is: "it appears to them impracticable", instead of, "it is impracticable". Any acquisition under the clause remains, of course, as with all compulsory procedures, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. I think that I have put down an Amendment which meets the point made by the noble Earl, and I hope that he will be able to confirm that this is so and that your Lordships will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pane 22, line 24, after ("authority") insert—", if it appears to them impracticable to obtain such access by an access agreement or access order,")—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should again like to thank the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken to meet us on this point, which I think he has done quite satisfactorily.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Acquisition by Secretary of State of land for public access]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I would point out that the subsection to be deleted was entirely dependent on the subsection in Clause 24, which was deleted in Committee by an Amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, which I was then able to accept. This Amendment therefore proposes that this now unnecessary subsection be deleted also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Hughes.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord very much for the trouble he has taken. If all Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries took so much trouble for the Opposition, life would be

1549
very much easier. I thank the noble Lord very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.56 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out Clause 25. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I put down an identical Amendment to this one on the Committee stage, but owing to the lack of time, and the fact that I do not think it is of any great importance, I did not move it then. But I told the noble Lord that I should be moving it at Report stage, as I would have hated him to waste his no doubt beautifully prepared reply. I should like to know exactly when the Government visualise that the Secretary of State may need these powers, as local planning authorities have them under the previous clause. Are they purely reserve powers, in case a local planning authority will not acquire land which the Countryside Commission and the Secretary of State consider it should, or might the Secretary of State compete with a local planning authority to acquire land before the local planning authority can do so? I do not imagine it is the latter case; and if it were I think it would be very unsatisfactory. But perhaps the noble Lord could confirm this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 25.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: I should hate to deprive the noble Duke of the knowledge which is in the brief that was prepared on the last occasion, which has been, I am afraid, re-written, with minor amendments, for this occasion; so if he will be content with what I have for the Report stage I will abandon what I had for the Committee stage. I share what I am certain is also the view of other noble Lords, that this clause, as has so far been the case with its equivalent in England, will not be used. But that is as far as I can go. It would be wrong, in framing legislation which we do not expect to alter to any great extent for many years, to ignore the possibility that such a power might in some circumstances be required.
We hope and expect that local planning authorities will take any action necessary to secure adequate facilities for public access. We could, however, be
1550
disappointed in this expectation, and it might then be appropriate for the Secretary of State to acquire the land required and arrange for its administration. This is an eventuality for which we must be prepared, and that is why the clause is in the Bill. The deletion of subsection (2), to which your Lordships have just agreed, will restrict its application from that originally envisaged, and with that in mind, together with the assurances I have just given, I hope the noble Duke will be satisfied that his thirst for knowledge has been quenched, and that the Amendment will be extinguished.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for that reply, which I find quite satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Maps of land subject to public access]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), after the second "map," to insert: "and of the notices referred to in paragraph (b) below". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I would wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which hang together. We believe that it is in the interest of everyone for details of access land and any restrictions applying to it to be as widely publicised as possible. This Amendment and the related Amendments, Nos. 10 and 11, seek to give effect to the undertaking which I gave to the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, in Committee. I think these Amendments fully meet the points he then made. They will enable local planning authorities to display maps and notices specifying restrictions at places such as, for example, youth hostels as well as at places where the public obtain access to the land.
I wonder whether this could be regarded as not too inappropriate a place to refer to the noble Duke's query on the 1964 Development and Finance Act, as I have now been able to find out what the position is. Section 2 of that Act enables local authorities to provide footpaths on land, with the consent of the owners, where the local authorities do not themselves own the land. In such a case, the powers include the safeguarding of public

1551
access for the future. This, however, falls a long way short of the kind of access which will be provided under Clause 13. This will cover, in the main, tracts of open country and not footpaths. The public paths provision of Part III of the Bill provides a much more detailed range of powers for the provision in the countryside of footpaths.
Again, Clause 52 of the Bill extends the 1964 Act powers explicitly to enable members of the public to enjoy the countryside or engage in open air recreation there. In 1964 the powers were confined for the purpose of (a) preserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the land; or (b) enabling land to be brought into use. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke will accept that our present proposals go far beyond the rather limited concepts of the 1964 Act in this particular field. To return to the Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 18, after ("map") insert ("and of the notices referred to in paragraph (b) below").—(Lord Hughes.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord not only for Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which I think fully meet the point I tried to bring out in Committee, but also for his answer to my question on a previous Amendment which I also find very satisfactory. The only thing I do not think he answered on that matter—and I will not ask him to do so now—is: what is the rate of grant under the Local Government Act, and is the rate of grant under the Local Government Act superseded by the rate of grant under this Bill in Clause 52? I realise that these are rather technical points and I do not wish to make an issue of them. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his answer to my remarks on the previous Amendment and also for these three Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 20, leave out ("may, if they think fit,") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 21, leave out ("places") and insert ("such places as they think fit, including places".—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Boundary notices]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, Clause 28 gives the local planning authority power to erect and maintain notices indicating boundaries of land comprised in an access agreement or an access order. I am suggesting that they should not only have power to erect and maintain notices but also be allowed to erect and maintain other marks which would have the same effect, such as cairns. I think we are in danger of becoming ruled by notices. On occasions I feel that it might not be necessary to put up large and ugly notices to indicate the boundaries of land covered by an access agreement and that it might be better to put up cairns or white stones or something like that. I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment and with it Amendment 11 B, which is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 33, after ("notices") to insert ("or other means of ").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment. I have in mind an area where the boundaries are marked by stones with appropriate marks on them, in this case an initial on one side referring to one estate and on the other side referring to another. These are quite immovable; they are very heavy and embedded in the ground. They have been there for a long time and are very useful. As to notices, it is possible to move them or push them down, and it is also possible for them to be turned round so that they face the opposite direction. A number of vandalistic activities are engaged in from time to time by the young; and I have recently seen an example of this in our village where the young thought it rather a joke to turn round a large, new signpost so that it faced the opposite direction—which was rather a disaster for everybody. I think it a good idea to use other means such as stones or cairns of any type which are immovable objects

1553
and which will fix the boundaries. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I appreciate that boundaries may be readily and more inexpensively defined by means of notices at a few points and suitable distinguishing marks in other places. Therefore, I am very happy to accept the noble Duke's Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while the noble Lord accepts this Amendment—and I am glad that he does so—I hope that it will not weaken the meaning of notices indicating boundaries of land. For example, as you enter into the Glen Feshie forest there is a very good notice actually indicating the boundaries of land on a map for that purpose. It is one thing to do that; it is another thing to have direction posts. That seems to me to be a different matter.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am satisfied that I should not have been able to extract from my advisers the necessary authority to accept the Amendment if they had the slightest doubts about it. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, knows that it is always much easier for the office to find reasons for rejecting Amendments than reasons for accepting them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Power of local planning authority to contribute to work carried out by other persons]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, before moving Amendment No. 11B, perhaps I should point out that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List and that, in fact, this Amendment applies to Clause 29. Amendment No. 11B is purely consequential on the Amendment which has just been accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 41, after ("notices") to insert ("or other means of indicating boundaries").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30:
Creation of public paths by agreement
30.—
(3) In this Part of this Act "public path" means a way which is a footpath or bridleway or a combination of those.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to subsection (3):
"and, for the purposes of sections 54, 55 and 64 of this Act, includes any such way existing at the commencement of this Act."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a rather more important Amendment. Under Clause 30, public paths are created by agreement. My Amendment to that clause would mean that the public paths which are created by agreement and the public paths and footpaths and rights-of-way which already exist would be subject to the by-law provisions and the warden provisions contained in Clauses 54, 55 and 64 of this Bill. I think this is desirable because I can see that there are going to be difficulties where there is a public footpath going across land which is subject to access agreements and where that land is subject to these by-laws and wardens, yet the public path, because it was an existing right-of-way when the Bill came into force, would not be subject to these provisions.
I should have thought, therefore, that it would have been tidier to give the local planning authority power to make these existing rights of way subject to these provisions in certain circumstances. I can fully understand the reluctance of the noble Lord to make it compulsory when this is a Bill designed to give people more access to the countryside. Obviously, there are many rights-of-way where the present set-up has worked extremely well in the past (and there is no reason why it should not work equally well in the future), to which no by-laws apply, and for which there are no wardens. But, my Lords, I should have thought that difficulties could arise where an existing right-of-way crosses land subject to an access agreement, or is very much connected to it by public paths created by this Bill.
For instance, what would happen if someone threw litter on a public right of way? If they did this on land subject to an access agreement, they would be transgressing against the by-laws. But so far as I can make out, if they threw litter on a public right of way, even though it might actually fall on land subject to the access agreement, they would not be committing any particular offence because they would be throwing their litter on a private place; and that, I believe, is not covered by the Litter Act. I feel that this is undesirable and could

1555
make the job of the wardens extremely difficult, because they would not be able to tell people how to behave on a public footpath. They probably would do so, but legally they would not be able to tell people how to behave on a public footpath. Yet the moment anyone stepped off a public path on to land which was not part of a public path, I imagine that the wardens would be able to give a little fatherly advice to misbehaving members of the public. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord may see his way to accept the Amendment. I feel that it would be a useful addition to the Bill, and it is an Amendment which does not go very far against his thesis that the object of the Bill is to give the public more and not less access to the countryside. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 15, at end insert ("and, for the purposes of sections 54, 55 and 64 of this Act, includes any such way existing at the commencement of this Act.").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
4.13 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as I said when this Amendment was discussed in Committee, throughout the preparation of this Bill the Government have been anxious not to weaken or in any way to prejudice the current provisions governing rights of way and the manner in which the public has traditionally been able to enjoy them. I cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment, which would enable by-laws to be made and wardens to be appointed in relation to existing rights of way which have functioned for many years without such provisions. In any case, we do not envisage such controls being widely needed on public paths as distinct from areas of access land. If circumstances should arise (I think this will meet the point made by the noble Duke) where it is felt that some form of by-law or warden control is desirable over an existing right of way, I think that in all probability it would involve a way of leading to an area of access land. The local planning authority concerned could, in that event, transform the right of way into a public path—by agreement, I hope—and they would then be in a position to promote the by-laws required. In the circumstances, therefore, I hope that the noble Duke will not seek to press his Amendment which would
1556
confer wide power over existing rights of way to deal with what, so far as I am aware, is almost certainly a very restricted problem.
In referring to what I said about the 1964 Act, the noble Duke said that he would not ask me a question about particular points which he enumerated, and therefore I did not undertake to give him an answer. I have, however, been apprised of the information, and it is so satisfactory from the Government's point of view that I am very anxious to share it with the noble Duke and with the rest of your Lordships. It is that, as happened with the previous Administration, there was no grant payable under the 1964 Act, apart—and, of course, this is a quite big "apart"—from the normal ranking of expenditure for rate support grant. Under the present Bill, however, Clause 67(1)(c) extends the payment of the 75 per cent. grants payable under the Bill to expenditure incurred in exercise of Section 2 powers of the 1964 Act as extended by the Bill. So noble Lords who were concerned about the parlous position of certain local authorities in these matters will note how very generous are the Government.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his last answer, which I agree is very satisfactory, not only from the point of view of the Government but, I feel sure, from the point of view of everyone. Reverting to the first part of his answer, I do not think that the noble Lord quite covered the point. I am not sure whether it will arise (although I imagine that it may) that because people are wandering off a right of way, which is quite likely to happen, it is decided to make an access agreement on land round about the right of way. Will the right of way be subject to the by-laws and wardens which, presumably, the owner and occupier might insist on with that access agreement? I do not visualise any difficulties arising where existing rights of way do not have around them land subject to an access agreement or order. The only place where it is visualised that this might arise is where an existing right of way goes through land subject to an access agreement or order, or where paths made under Clause 30 of the Bill tag on to either end of an existing right of way. I

1557
do not know. Has the noble Lord got his answer yet?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I gave it to the noble Duke, but the thought occurred to me that it seemed such an unsatisfactory position that you could have an access area and a right of way running through it, and I was seeking to clarify my own mind on the situation. The advice I have is that what the noble Duke has postulated is such an unlikely situation that it would not be covered. An agreement would not be drawn up in such a way as to cover the whole thing. I think, therefore, that the noble Duke should be able to sleep at night and that this should not keep him awake.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this point to any great extent, but I do not think that it is all that unlikely. Many of the existing rights of way run through beautiful countryside, just the sort of countryside, I should have thought, to which the Countryside Commission for Scotland, local planning authorities and owners might consider that access agreements are appropriate. I should have thought that where you have an area as big as, say, the Cairngorms which is subject to an access agreement, there are probably existing rights of way running through it, and this might raise a very real difficulty. I am still rather worried about this one point. I am not at all worried about where existing rights of way are left entirely on their own. I can see that if it has worked all right for a long time without wardens and by-laws, there is no reason why that situation should not continue; but I think it would create a great anomally if, where existing rights of way run through areas subject to by-laws and wardens, the by-laws and wardens should not apply just to the particular area covered by the right of way.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I hope that when in due course the noble Duke reads what I have said, he will derive as much satisfaction from it as I intended to convey to him. I do not think that he is giving my words the value which, naturally, I attach to them.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I always give his words immense value. I do not wish to press this Amendment, though obviously we have no further chance of
1558
looking at it, which I think is a pity. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37:
Compensation for Creation, Diversion and Closure of Public Paths
37.—
(4) Nothing in this section shall confer on any person, in respect of a right of way created by a public path creation order or a public path diversion order, a right to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land, or for disturbance in his enjoyment of land, not being in either case land over which the right of way was created or land held therewith, unless the creation of the right of way would have been actionable at his instance if it had been effected otherwise than in the exercise of statutory powers.
4.20 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Duke said: My Lords, we had a lengthy discussion about this subsection in Committee. When someone has a footpath diverted, under Clause 35, or has a new footpath made, under Clause 30, neighbouring owners may be affected. For instance, a footpath may be created alongside a hedge or fence, and if the person over the fence has a young plantation, it may be exposed to greater fire risk, particularly if heretofore it has been difficult for people to get along that way—because perhaps of a prickly hedge at one end of it, which is now cut down sufficiently to make a stile, or because there is a large burn not all that easy to cross which now has a bridge made across it.
I would have thought it only fair that the person next door to a footpath, though he does not actually own the land over which the footpath goes, should be entitled to some compensation. I fully recognise that there are difficulties, because it probably alters the whole law of compensation, which is outside the scope of this Bill. But it seems to me that people who own next-door land could be even more affected, depending on the use to which they put the land, than the person who actually owns the land over which the diverted footpath or new footpath goes.
I also wonder how the possible changes, which are envisaged owing to the Halliday Committee's Report on feuing law, apply to this question. The houses

1559
on many housing estates are subject to feus, one of the conditions of which is not to allow a public footpath to go through the land subject to feu. If the law is altered so that these feuing conditions no longer apply, it seems to me that all the people on the housing estate might have grounds for complaint, and therefore, presumably, for compensation, if a footpath were allowed to cross their estate contrary to what the feu charters originally said when they bought their houses and the land on which they were built. I fully realise that this point has not yet arisen, but I should like to plant the seeds of thought about it in the minds of the Government before they enact legislation to alter the feu laws in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (4).—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Duke has said, we had some discussion on this matter in Committee. I have given further consideration to the points raised by the noble Duke, but I am sorry that I still cannot accept his Amendment. The subsection limits the right of compensation to persons interested in the land over which the path runs or land in the same ownership. The noble Duke said that his Amendment possibly re-writes the whole law of compensation. That is rather over-stating the position, but certainly if we were to agree to this it would run completely contrary to the established practice in matters of this kind; and it would be quite wrong to do so. The owners of adjoining land will not be entitled to compensation unless they would have been entitled to take legal action to prevent or challenge a voluntary agreement to the creation of the path by the owner of the land over which it runs—for example, if they have enjoyed the benefit of a restrictive covenant against such an agreement. As this provision differs in no way at all from the normal form in such circumstances, I am certain that the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I still think that the normal form is grossly unfair, but I suspect that the whole of this side of compensation ought to be looked at. I recognise that to
1560
do it in this Bill, though it would be a good start, would probably make this Bill out of line with all the other Acts under which people can claim compensation. My real object in moving this Amendment is to sow the seeds of doubt in the Government's mind. I hope that they will look at the whole of our law of compensation so that not only the person over whose land a footpath—or for that matter any other form of activity of this sort—goes, but also those who suffer from it through disturbance or some other reason may be entitled to compensation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39:
General provisions as to long-distance routes
39.—
(4) Before submitting a report under this section the Commission shall consult with every local planning authority through whose area the route passes; and it shall be the duty of every such authority to furnish to the Commission such information as the Commission may reasonably require for the purposes of the report.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15 and 16 together, the last three being consequential. When we were discussing this clause in Committee, it was suggested by the noble Duke that the terms of subsection (2) as drafted might not be wide enough to comprehend all the matters relating to long distance routes which the Commission might properly wish to include in proposals. The use of the words, "without prejudice to the generality" overcomes this difficulty. We are also taking the opportunity to improve the drafting of subsection (5) by cutting out seven lines without altering the meaning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 37, at end insert ("for the provision, maintenance and enjoyment of the route, and without prejudice to that generality—").— (Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I welcome this Amendment. I think that it makes a definite improvement.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble

1561
Lord, Lord Hughes, for these Amendments. They cover the points which I tried to cover much less well on Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: moved, in subsection (4), after "with" to insert:
"the owners and occupiers of the land through which the route passes and with".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move an Amendment to a clause which deals with long-distance routes rather than with the paths and short accesses we have been discussing. An Amendment was moved in another place to provide for prior consultation with owners and occupiers, and the Minister undertook to look further at this matter. So far as I can see however, no action has been taken. It would seem desirable that in the exercise of the Commission's general functions under this Part of the Bill there should be express provision for consultation between the Commission and the owners and occupiers of the land through which these long-distance routes are to pass.
When the Amendment was moved in the Committee stage here and we discussed this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that there would be consultation if particular difficulties appeared to exist, and that under Clauses 30 and 31, when the time comes to put the proposals into practice, owners and occupiers would be consulted. That is all very well, but it is possible that the consultation with regard to obtaining agreement and similar conditions for long-distance routes under Clause 39 might be a fairly long business.
Clause 31, as we know, deals with the compulsory powers for the creation of public paths, but it does not directly relate to the question of long-distance routes, which we are discussing at the moment. On the assumption that compulsory powers are available in relation to long-distance routes, consultation at a very early stage would, I think, be most important. If it were left too late, and it was then necessary to take some compulsory action, the consultation on this particular subject would also probably be too late, since it would most likely be a matter of consulting a considerable number of different authorities—not
1562
necessarily all private owners, but all the authorities along which these long-distance routes will run. I am thinking, for instance, of the Forestry Commission, where no doubt a great deal of discussion would take place, and where there might be great delay, and the matter of using compulsory powers would be strongly resisted. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider this Amendment that we have put down in order to see whether these troubles can be forestalled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 7, after ("with") insert the said words.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must confess to some surprise at seeing this Amendment appear again. I thought that my explanation in Committee, at columns 909–910 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for July 26, had satisfied the noble Baroness. It appears to have satisfied the noble Duke, who withdrew the Amendment on her behalf. I hope that I am not getting into trouble by drawing attention to the fact that the noble Duke may have exceeded the powers of the agency conferred upon him at that time. I gave quotations in Committee from what my honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place, and the noble Baroness has made it quite clear that she has read what I said on that occasion. Therefore I will not weary her or the House by repeating what I said then. That being so, there is really nothing more I can add to what I said at the previous stage, except to say that Her Majesty's Government stand fully by the assurances which were then given. I hope that the noble Baroness will once again, but directly this time, and not by an agent, find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I hope that what the noble Lord has said will be right. I was only afraid that, in circumstances which I can visualise, of long protracted arrangements, it might be difficult. However, if he thinks he is sufficiently well equipped to meet the situation, I will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. It is not absolutely clear whether, in accordance with the procedure that he indicated in column 909, the

1563
owners will have an opportunity of proposing an amendment to the line of route. According to what the noble Lord said they will be consulted. He said:
"I accept that consultation with landowners at this stage should take place if particular difficulties appear to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/7/67, col. 909.]
How will they know that particular difficulties exist unless they are consulted? It seems important that landowners should have an opportunity at some period to propose changes to the line of the route before it is definitely fixed.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think the assurances which I gave, that the consultations will take place with the owners, would not be of much avail if they did not cover a point of this kind. It is intended that the consultation at the appropriate opportunity should be the fullest possible consultation, and it would not be so if a restriction of the kind which the noble Lord wishes to prevent were likely.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged for that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 14, after ("outlay") insert ("and annual expenditure").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 14, after ("incurred") insert ("by any authority").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, leave out lines 16 to 22.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40:
Approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route
40.—
(2) As soon as may be after the Secretary of State determines under the last foregoing
1564
subsection either to approve any proposals, with or without modifications or conditions, or to reject them, he shall notify his determination to the Commission and to every local planning authority whose area is traversed by the route to which…the report relates.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and". The noble Duke said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 16A and 16B at the same time. Clause 40 deals with the mechanics of making a long-distance route, and the Secretary of State has the power either to approve, with or without alterations, the proposals, or to reject them. Under subsection (2), as soon as he has made up his mind he has to notify the Countryside Commission and every local planning authority through whose area the proposed route is going to pass. This, I think, will be perfectly adequate if he approves the route, with or without alterations, because presumably in that case the Countryside Commission and the local planning authorities will then start telling the owners concerned that he has approved it, and arrange for them to make the route available.
I am worried, however, as to what happens when the Secretary of State rejects the proposed long-distance route. Rumours will have gone around, because of the inquiries which have been going on under the previous subsection, that a long-distance route is in the offing. There will be no means of scotching those rumours, except by time, when nothing will have happened, and it may have an effect—I agree it may be a small effect—on the price of property over which, according to the rumour, the long-distance route was likely to go. I should have thought that in these cases it should be the duty of the Secretary of State not only to tell the Countryside Commission and the local planning authorities but in some way also to publish his decision that he has rejected the proposal for the long-distance route.
I have suggested that the Secretary of State should put an advertisement to that effect in newspapers which circulate in the areas concerned. It probably would not even be necessary for him to put in an advertisement: probably if he rang up and told the editor he would be delighted to publish that the long-distance route which had been rumoured was not going to take place. However, I think it is

1565
difficult to move in that way, and I feel that the Secretary of State should put in an advertisement to publish the fact that the long-distance route was not going to take place. If the Commission and the local planning authorities who have suggested the route are the only ones told that it has been rejected, the danger is that they are unlikely to publish it abroad, because it will be a blow to their morale that what they had suggested has been turned down by the Secretary of State. In these circumstances, I think it would be a good idea that some provision should be made in this clause for publication of the fact that the mooted long-distance route has not been approved and will not be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 42, leave out ("and").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised at the line which the noble Duke has taken. I had not contemplated for one moment that he would find the procedure perfectly satisfactory where the Secretary of State approved a long-distance route but would be worried about the consequence of what would happen if he did not approve. I must admit that the problem to which he has directed attention is quite a different one. Nevertheless, although I am admitting it is a different one from the one I was briefed to answer, it does not alter the situation, because the position is that it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to make such advertisement of his decision. The Countryside Commission are the body who have made the proposals, and it is their responsibility, and I have no doubt at all we could rely on them to see that the Secretary of State's approval or disapproval of them gets all the publicity it needs.
It has, perhaps, not escaped notice that these bodies which are created are not entirely divorced from the sort of feelings that other organisations or individuals may have, and when they get a decision which they do not think is the one they ought to have got they are just as likely to draw attention to it in the hope that the resulting publicity will get the Secretary of State to change his mind. In the circumstances, I think the noble Duke's fear that an approval will be published abroad but a refusal will be suppressed
1566
will prove to be groundless. I am sure that administratively we can make certain his fears are groundless.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Ploughing of public rights of way]:
4.42 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(2A) Where a public right of way is ploughed in exercise of the said right the occupier of the land shall leave sufficient headland round the land so ploughed to enable users of the right of way to walk conveniently from the usual point of access to such land to the usual point of egress from such land."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 16(C), and at the same time I should like to discuss No. 16(D) which is purely the penalty for transgressing No. 16(C). Clause 43 gives an occupier the right to plough over public paths when it is in the interests of good husbandry. This provision is probably a reasonable and a fair one, but I can see its leading to difficulties in certain circumstances. These are when a public path cuts across a field and a farmer, in the course of his farming activities, decides to plough that field and does not leave any headlands at all. There is then no means for people who wish to use the public path to get from one side of the field to the other without walking across the land which has been ploughed, which is both bad for the crops and remarkably uncomfortable to do normally, unless it has been a much drier year than we have had so far this autumn. It makes one's feet remarkably wet and dirty.
I should have thought, therefore, that it was only fair to put in this clause a provision that the farmer, when he ploughs a public path—and that seems to me to be quite a valuable right—as a quid pro quo should be made to leave a headland around the field, so that people who wish to go on using the public path may walk round the field in comfort, without getting their feet dirty and wet. This headland would obviously remain until the field was back once again into grass or stubble and the path across the

1567
middle of the field could be used as before. I think this problem will not arise very often, but where it does it may be quite longstanding, because the field may easily be ploughed up in October or November and then sown, for instance, with winter wheat, which would not be harvested until probably the following August or September. So the public footpath could be out of action, at the extreme, for eleven months, even if it were reinstated as soon as may be. I agree it is more likely that it would be out of use for nine months, but even that seems to be quite a long time. I think it is only fair that the sort of provision I have suggested in Amendment 16(C) should be in the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of this Amendment, if only because I believe that earlier in the debate the noble Duke mentioned the possibility of what we do in this Bill applying to England. Only a month ago I went for a walk in the neighbourhood of Cambridge, and going up a well-defined signposted right of way I came upon a field ploughed from hedge to hedge. It was heavy Cambridge clay, pretty well impassable. That was the utmost extent of my walk; I had to turn back. It occurred to me at that moment that this was a most imprudent arrangement from the agriculturist's point of view. It seems to me inevitable that when it was drier people walking or riding would be entitled to go across the crop and spoil it, and it would be in everybody's interest if a provision of this sort were embodied in the Bill, so that it would be clear beyond peradventure that walkers and hikers should avoid a crop and at the same time to be able to do so without being denied the right (which of course they have) to go from one point to another across a field. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords I admit it was a personal disappointment to me to find I could not accept this Amendment, which seemed to reflect such an eminently common-sense point of view—that the person temporarily deprived of part of his way should be provided
1568
with a satisfactory alternative in the manner which the noble Duke has suggested. I am advised, however, that simply because of the processes of consultation it would be impossible to accept it. All these matters which affect the farming interests have been gone into exceedingly carefully with the National Farmers' Union and other interests of the kind, and we have been grateful for the spirit in which all of those organisations entered into the matter, seeking to be helpful rather than otherwise. Sometimes there were quite fundamental disagreements, but at no time were the organisations obstructive.
The clause as drafted was intended to make as little interference as possible with farming operations and, at the same time, to cause the least possible inconvenience to the public. It was because of the circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, experienced that we have the requirement in the Bill placing a clear obligation on the farmer to restore the right of way as quickly as possible. Your Lordships will recollect that at an earlier stage the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, I believe, sought to have this made more clearly defined. We did not wish to define it more clearly because we felt that a definition of that sort could be achieved only at the expense, perhaps, of creating hardship for the farmer.
This is so obviously a matter which would appear to be to the advantage of the user of the right of way that, as I say, I was very anxious to try to accept the Amendment. But because of these conditions, and because of these conditions alone—that time did not permit consultation—rather than overthrow what was already in the Bill as a result of agreements, I cannot accept the Amendment. However, there is one consolation in not accepting it. There is some advantage to the user of the path in maintaining the present position. The position as at present laid down in the Bill is that there is a quite definite obligation on the farmer to restore the right of way at the earliest possible opportunity. We have a fear that the one disadvantage of the noble Duke's proposal is that, if a headland of this kind were created, it would remove in a sense the urgency of the farmer's restoring the right of way; and, over a period of years, the right of way might turn out to be not the direct route it was hitherto but the headland. I am most

1569
grateful to the noble Duke, for this Amendment shows quite clearly how anxious he is to make the situation as workable as possible in the interests of the users of the right of way; and it is with very real regret that I come to the conclusion that the position ought to remain as it is in the Bill.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask one question? Is it right, for instance, if there is no headland left, for people to walk across, or to ride across in the case of pony trekking? Will they be permitted to ride straight over the crops which have been sown or walk straight over them, or will that be forbidden? What will be the position of sown land, say in July, shortly before the crops are harvested? Will people be able to walk through them, or will horses be allowed to ride across them?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think that if we referred to what was said at Committee stage by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, we should find that he referred to the practice which he had experienced South of the Border where the sort of thing which the noble Duke wished to have written into the Bill is in fact done by agreement. It is very much in the interests of the farmer that when he ploughs up the right of way he should in fact provide an alternative route, not because the Act compels him to, but in his own interests. He should provide a way round which will limit or cut out damage to the crop which he has sown. We very much hope that in these circumstances attempts will be made—I am certain they will be—to get agreements of this kind brought about. The proposal is so eminently sensible that it ought to be carried out. Relationships between Governments and farmers are at any time a delicate matter, and I would not wish in any way to imperil our satisfactory relations with them (if that is the correct term) by abandoning this agreement at this late stage.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if I may, with the permission of the House, speak again may I point out to the noble Lord, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, that either the right of way is going to be severed at this point or the public are going to cross. If there is no way round the headland, then if they
1570
circle the field it will do more damage to the crop than if they went across. As the noble Duke pointed out, the position can continue for an entire summer, especially if a field is put down in roots and closed off, unless in the interests of the farmer, as well as of the public, some alternative provision is made whereby damage to the crop can be avoided.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is clearly in the farmer's interest that he should make his own arrangements for an alternative route. The fact that he ploughs up a right of way does not extinguish the right of way, and if he does not make some temporary alternative to the right of way the public cannot be stopped from exercising their right to walk over the right of way, no matter what damage that may do the farmer's ploughing or crops. While it is obviously in the farmer's interest to do this kind of thing, the Farmers' Union, after they have been consulted about these matters, do not like—and I think it is a perfectly reasonable point of view—a change to be made in them without further consultation taking place.
As I became aware of these most interesting proposals of the noble Duke only about a week ago, and we had first to examine the practicality of the propositions, there has been no time to effect the fairly lengthy consultations that would have been involved. I think I made it very clear that it is with the greatest reluctance that I have to advise the withdrawal of this Amendment.
4.57 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I realise his disappointment that he cannot accept the Amendment. But I raised this point on the Committee stage. I admit that I sent in the actual Amendment only a week ago: I had some difficulty in composing something which was suitable. But I mentioned this point on the Committee stage, and I should have thought that two and a half months would have been sufficient time to enable the Government's advisers to consult with the National Farmers' Union. It seems to me, as the noble Lord said, a reasonable proposition. There would be great advantages in leaving it in, and I suggest that he might allow us to leave it in now.

1571
The other place could then knock it out if they so desired, and thereby incur the odium of everyone who has to walk through a ploughed field during the course of his meanderings over public footpaths, rather than go round by a headland.
I would also point out that it is perfectly conceivable, with the barley monoculture practised in certain parts of Scotland, that a footpath that went across one of these fields could be out of action for five or six summers running; and I think that this is a point to which some consideration ought to be paid. People will begin to wonder whether these paths mean anything when they can cross fields of this sort. I should have thought it would have been well worth while considering good relations with the public in dealing with this clause. I should like the noble Lord to comment on my suggestion, that we leave this in the Bill, and to say whether he does not think it possible that another place might consider it, and if they did not like it they could always knock it out.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the course which the noble Duke suggests is fraught with peril. Time is not on our side, and if we followed this course inevitably it would take a day longer, at least, to deal with the proposals. So far, if I recollect correctly, the only Amendments which have been made to the Bill are Amendments which are acceptable. It is so long since we had the Committee stage that I cannot be absolutely certain, but I do not think that anything was put in which was not acceptable to the Government. If we can continue this process, and another place to-morrow is able to be presented with a series of Amendments all of which are acceptable to them, that will be a fairly simple course of action. But if they are presented with a series of Amendments, some of which they will accept and some of which they will reject, then we shall have to find time for further consideration of the Bill here, and I do not think that this would be a wise course to accept. While I can appreciate the noble Duke's regret that so promising a child should be cut off at an early stage, I think his pride of paternity must rest on having fathered the child and he must accept his inability to rear it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw this Amendment, because I feel that it is a reasonable one; and to withdraw it would not convey my views at all, or those of my noble friend Lord Ferrier. Of course we shall not insist on it in any way because I realise the difficulties in which the noble Lord is placed although I am not entirely sure that it would take a day longer in another place. I imagine that they could consider it equally easily to-morrow, and it could then come back to your Lordships' House on Thursday, and presumably the Royal Assent will not be given until Friday. I feel that I would rather have the Amendment negatived than withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 48:
Country Parks
48.—(1) A country park is a park or pleasure ground in the countryside which by reason of its position in relation to major concentrations of population affords convenient opportunities to the public for enjoyment of the countryside or open-air recreation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "position", and to substitute:
"affords convenient opportunities to members of the public for major concentrations of population for the enjoyment of the countryside or open-air recreation."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I seem to be talking a great deal. We had a discussion at Committee stage on the point referred to in this Amendment, and on the use of the words "in relation to" when referring to country parks—"in relation to major concentrations of population".
At the Committee stage I said the danger was that Glasgow might easily consider that a country park near Nairn was within its orbit since one could easily fly there in approximately half an hour. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, took me up on that point and said:
"I just wanted to make it quite clear that we had not visualised the possibility that local authorities would be providing many country parks for the particular convenience of those who could afford to buy an aeroplane."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/7/67, col. 922.]

1573
The thought struck me then that forty years ago the equivalent of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would have said exactly the same thing, only substituting the word "motor car" for the word "aeroplane". I understand that this Bill is to last for a long time, and I think it perfectly possible that in twenty years' time many citizens of Glasgow will be in a position either to buy or to hire aeroplanes, and it might be reasonable for a country park to be near Nairn and to be financed and run by Glasgow Corporation.
On the whole, I feel that this wording is undesirable. I think that the words "position in relation to" ought to be qualified in some way, so that the cities cannot make country parks all over the country, which is what it would amount to. Therefore I have tried once again to compose something which might please the noble Lord and which at the same time gets away from the difficulty of the words "position in relation to". My drafting is probably most unsatisfactory: nearly everything one attempts in this way is unsatisfactory, but it does not mention the expressions, "position in relation to" or "proximity", one of which I object to and one of which the noble Lord the Under-Secretary objects to. I hope the noble Lord will consider this, because it is a small problem which could cause difficulties in the future, although perhaps not for 20 or 30 years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 24, leave out from ("position") to end of line 27 and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, having listened to what the noble Duke has said, I am quite satisfied that there is no difference in principle between us on this matter. I was interested in what he said about the aeroplane, because when I was discussing this Amendment again with my advisers this morning I said then that if in fact we had been doing this 40 years ago we should probably have been thinking in terms of the distance that could be covered by a horse and cart; and who knows what the future will have in store? However, when I said earlier, in relation to another Amendment, that in preparing this Bill we were passing legislation which we hoped would not be amended for some time, I did not necessarily wish to convey
1574
the impression that we are so convinced of the perfection of everything in it that it will stand the test of time for another 40 years. I hope that there will be fresh legislation before then, because I am certain that new needs will emerge which will not be covered by these proposals.
The noble Duke's previous attempt to deal with this matter was unnecessarily restrictive in relation to the geography of the country parks. I have said that I did not think there was much in principle between us, and we are still satisfied that the wording as it stands is the best way of reflecting what I think both he and I have in mind. In any event, even if I were disposed to accept his Amendment, from the legal point of view it suffers from a defect which would be somewhat disastrous, because it would appear, at any rate, to imply that entry to a park would be restricted to members of the public from major concentrations of population. How is anyone in a position to control entry on the basis that one person is coming from a major centre of population and another person is not? That would almost imply, if I may be jocular for a moment, the imposition of some sort of passport or visa guaranteeing entry to such a park if one came from Glasgow but denying one entry if one came from Freuchie.
I am quite certain that the noble Duke accepts that this is impossible, and while it is the intention that these parks should be provided by these authorities primarily for their own people, there is no way of ensuring that an Edinburgh man does not in fact go into a park for which the Glasgow ratepayers pay, any more than one could keep Glasgow people out of Edinburgh's parks at the present time; and I do not think the noble Duke would want us to attempt such an impossible task. I compliment the noble Duke on his ingenuity and regret that it has not achieved better results in persuading us that it is the correct thing to do.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am disappointed, although hardly surprised, by that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Camping and caravan sites]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (4), after "site" where that word occurs the third time, to insert "is

1575
becoming a health hazard and". The noble Duke said: Under this subsection a local authority have the power to acquire land compulsorily where it appears to them that a camping site, or an additional camping site, is needed in their area, or that land which is in use as a camping site should in the interests of the general public be taken over by the local authority. I do not object to the fact that they have this power to acquire land compulsorily for a camping site in their area; I can visualise cases where this power might be extremely useful, and I think it is probably a good thing that it should be in the Bill. What I object to is that they have power to acquire a perfectly good camping site in their area on any grounds they like to put forward. Of course, I imagine that they will have to get the permission of the Secretary of State to do so, and this probably limits them to some extent.
But local authorities occasionally do strange things, and if a camping site is being run rather unsuccessfully by someone on the local authority who carries a lot of weight in that rather small authority, it is perfectly possible that that person might persuade the authority that it would be a good idea to acquire a camping site being run very well by someone else, and probably charging less, in order to do away with competition to his site. This could also happen where the local authority were running a camping site themselves. Admittedly, the fact that they have to get the approval of the Secretary of State will make it slightly more difficult, but I do not see how the Secretary of State can be expected to know the local circumstances that apply. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be desirable to put in the reasons for their being able to acquire perfectly good camping sites compulsorily. I should have thought that the only reason for doing so was because the site was becoming a health hazard to other citizens. I have suggested that after the word "site", we might add "is becoming a health hazard and". It seems to me that that would cover all cases that are likely to arise, that it would get away from the difficulty that there might be local competition for a site run by the local authority or a powerful person on the local authority, and would cover any foreseeable occurrence
1576
where it really would be desirable in the interests of all concerned that the camping site should be acquired by the local authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 25, after ("site") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
5.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want to intervene unnecessarily in a Bill which has not been in my province hitherto, but the question of compulsory purchase and the reasons for which Parliament gives the local authority powers compulsorily to acquire other people's land is a subject to which I think Parliament should pay particular attention. I am not as familiar with the process of inquiries into compulsory purchase orders in Scotland as I am South of the Border, but I understand that there is provision for inquiry in the case of compulsory purchase where the owner of the land objects, and the matter is heard and decided upon subsequently by the Secretary of State.
In those circumstances it does not necessarily matter, I suggest, whether the wording of the Bill is explicit, provided that the Secretary of State has some guide lines to go on, and provided those who wish to object to compulsory purchase know what was in Parliament's mind when the Bill was passed in this form. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, thinks that the ground suggested by my noble friend is the only one likely to happen or not, but at the present moment there is no guidance whatever given to the Secretary of State. There is no restriction upon the limits of the powers given under this subsection, and I should have thought there should be. Whether it is in the Bill or not is probably of less account, because the question of vires is very seldom raised on these occasions.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, could say what are the circumstances in which he envisages that this sort of power should rightly be used, what is the public interest in relation to the acquisition of existing camping sites, then the Secretary of State will know, and the public will know, what was in the Government's mind and Parliament's mind when we passed the Bill in this form. Whether or

1577
not this Amendment is accepted, I hope the noble Lord can say what he considers the criteria should be.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. I feel that there is a very real risk of what he envisages happening. I have a site which might well be taken over by a neghbouring local authority in order to stamp out opposition. I think it should be made quite clear what is the position.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid that the fears expressed in regard to this question arise from a lack of full knowledge of what the procedure is. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has put his finger on what he hoped would be the necessary safeguard. In fact, the procedure he mentioned is involved in these proceedings. If a local authority wish to acquire a camping site compulsorily, this can be done only with the consent of the Secretary of State. I would remind your Lordships that the noble Duke said he presumed they would require the consent of the Secretary of State, and if that was so that would be a safeguard. I would say that that is the safeguard. The consent of the Secretary of State would only be given if necessary after a public inquiry. If the owner of the land objected, a public inquiry would in fact take place, and this is the procedure by which the Secretary of State becomes apprised of the circumstances.
The noble Duke said that the Secretary of State cannot expect to be knowledgeable in all these details of local matters. Of course he cannot, and this is the whole reason, so that he may act in a quasi-judicial capacity in these matters, why he should have an opportunity of having presented to him by a reporter the whole circumstances elicited at the public inquiry held locally. This in fact will be done.
If I could accept the fact that the only circumstance under which the site could be taken over was if it was becoming a health hazard, then I would have no objection to writing it into the Bill. But this is only one of a number of reasons. Amenity considerations might be one reason which in the local authority's mind would justify them seeking to take that course. Whether after a public inquiry the Secretary of State was of that mind might be a different matter. There might
1578
be a case where the local authority accepted the advice of its officials that the site was not being properly serviced, and that the owner was unable or unwilling to put it into a state of service which the local authority were calling for. That could be another reason. These are only two likely possibilities—the second one a very definite possibility, that of inadequacy of servicing of the site—because the standards of these sites now are fairly high, and the good ones are very much better than the poorest ones.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I think that both the reasons given by the noble Lord are met. You would not have received planning permission in the first place to put up sites unless you had satisfactory amenities. Many sites have been turned down because they were not sufficiently screened from the main road. I cannot see that either of those arguments is valid.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord must accept that the arguments are valid, because there are sites of that kind which are in existence.
LORD BURTON: They should never have passed the planning authority in the first place.
LORD HUGHES: It is one thing to talk about what planning authorities ought not to do, and quite another to talk about what they sometimes have done in the past. However, I cannot accept the Amendment because, first of all, this is not the only reason which would make a local authority wish to acquire a site compulsorily; therefore if we allowed this Amendment to be inserted it would deprive them of the opportunity of taking this action, although there were other circumstances of a nature just as strong as that of a health hazard which would make it in the public interest that the site should be taken over. I would, however, once again emphasise that this action can be taken only on the express authorisation of the Secretary of State, after a public inquiry if there has been objection to the proposal; and he would require—I am going beyond the normal position in relation to public inquiries—the most convincing case to be made out, with evidence that all reasonable alternatives to secure the public interest had been tried and had failed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in that connection I wonder whether the noble Lord will confirm that the acquiring authority would, before the public inquiry, have to serve upon the landowner who is objecting a statement of the precise aspect of the public interest upon which they were basing their acquisition and beyond which they would not be allowed to go at the inquiry. That is the position in England. I should like the noble Lord to confirm that the position is the same in Scotland and will apply under this particular Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not in a position to say exactly what it is, but the normal procedure at compulsory purchase inquiries would be followed out in this case—no more, no less. Even with that, we do not think that this is a power which would be much used. But what I can certainly say is that, having regard to the responsibilities which the Secretary of State has in the matter, it will most certainly never be a power which will be misused. For those reasons I must ask the noble Duke not to press his Amendment, in the hope that he will find the full procedure which will have to be adopted a complete safeguard, and that he will accept that in putting in the words "is becoming a health hazard and" he has not listed the only possible circumstances under which a local authority might have the right, in the public interest, to seek to acquire such a camping site.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, again I am somewhat disappointed, but at least we have had a satisfactory discussion on what will actually happen if a local authority tries to acquire one of these sites compulsorily. I do not think the other examples that the noble Lord has given are of any great value. If it is a proper camping site—by which I mean that its condition is something that people now expect from such sites—I should have thought that it might receive planning permission and therefore it would be extremely difficult for the local authority to say, "Notwithstanding the fact that we have given you planning permission, we think, on amenity grounds, it is in the public interest that we should compulsorily acquire your camping site."
In the second case the noble Lord mentioned, of inadequate services, I should
1580
have thought that if they were really inadequate they were probably leading to a health hazard, so that case would have been caught by my grounds anyway. But we have aired this matter. This appalling procedure—it really is an appalling procedure that the reasons for which the local authority can compulsorily acquire these sites should not be known—was started, so far as caravan sites were concerned, in the Caravan Act by my noble friends' Government, and this Bill is a pure copy of what was enacted in regard to caravan sites in that Act; so it would probably not be fair to try to alter this Bill without at the same time having legislation to alter the Act relating to caravans. On those grounds, and not because I am in any way convinced of the wrongness of my case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD THE EARL OF DUNDONALD moved to insert after subsection (4):
"( ) Land including a foreshore which is in general us as a Camping Ground or as a parking place for Motor Vehicles will be inspected by the Local Authority to ensure that adequate water and sanitary facilities exist."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to continue with the camping subject, but I think my Amendment is quite important. On the Committee stage the subject of camping was raised by several noble Lords, and Lord Burton and Lord Hughes spoke on it at some length. As a result of the credit squeeze and the restriction on foreign travel many of us have had an opportunity of seeing the effects of certain types of camping in Scotland, particularly during August and September.
Before developing my point, I think I should quote what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on the Committee stage. At column 927 of Hansard of July 26 he said—and I do not think this is taken out of context—
"I should like to say that we have discussed the system of licensing of camping sites with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who have had preliminary discussion with their local authority associations about it, and we in the Scottish Office are agreed with them that this is a problem which should be tackled in due course by legislation for Great Britain as a whole. The Caravan Act licensing system itself is in fact just emerging from its initial settling down period, and there has been

1581
no demand—no strong demand, at any rate—from Scottish local authorities for camping site licensing powers. The evidence we have suggests that they are able to keep sites under reasonable control by using their Public Health Act powers.'
Quite close to us in Scotland there is an authorised caravan camp. It is organised and well regulated. It is known as Tralee Bay. Next door to it there is an access road to the beach, through crofters' common grazing land, and during the Glasgow holiday week-end this year I counted 90 cars and over 30 tents on this land. They were there for the whole week-end. There is no water supply at all and no sanitary arrangements on this land. With, say, three people to a car, there were roughly 250 people in the area all the week-end. Surely in those circumstances it must be a health hazard. The litter and refuse left behind were quite appalling. This must have increased the risk of disease. A further incidental matter about this land is that the gravel and sand rights are let, and during this invasion the man who holds the letting cannot work them. My noble friend Lord Cromartie, who is not able to be here to-day, supports me in my Amendment, which I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, was good enough to write to me about this Amendment, and he gave me information about the case to which he has referred. I think it only right that this matter should be passed on for consideration by the appropriate local authority. My brief lists three types of control which are presently available: I think I have mentioned them all before, and I do not propose to mention them again. The noble Earl has produced evidence about a site on which, notwithstanding the three ways in which such conditions can be made impossible, they have in fact occurred. Therefore, we must accept that the real answer lies in the more positive provision of facilities.
The Bill, under Clause 49, empowers the local authorities to provide such facilities, and also makes such provision eligible for grant assistance under Clause 67. I am quite certain that the Countryside Commission will do all they can
1582
to encourage and assist local planning authorities to use these powers and a powerful reinforcing influence can be wielded by ratepayers in the locality if they can show the local planning authority that they are suffering inconvenience and damage to their property as a result of the lack of proper camping facilities in the area. Whilst, therefore, I hope the noble Earl will not seek to press this Amendment, I also hope that in the particular case he has in mind he will put the problem as clearly to the local authority as he has to-day to me and to the House. I would go beyond my brief and say that if he undertakes to do that I will do the same in relation to trying to prevent a repetition of these conditions on this particular site.
At the end of the day such conditions will be eliminated over the country as a whole only if local authorities make satisfactory use of the powers to provide the proper facilities. People will not subject themselves to these unsatisfactory conditions if they have a proper alternative. Unfortunately, the position at present in far too many places is that they do not have a satisfactory alternative, and that is one of the things which we are seeking to cover by the powers already included in Clauses 49 and 67. We should much prefer these powers to remain exactly as they are listed at present, since my advice is that this is the most satisfactory wording which we can accomplish.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his very full answer. I missed one or two words, but if I understood him aright he said that the local authority will have powers under the Bill either to take over the site if it is not satisfactory or to establish sanitation and water facilities. Before I withdraw the Amendment, I would add that I had been in touch with the authority before writing to the noble Lord, and I understand that it is very difficult for them to act under the existing Health Acts. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Parking Places]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18

1583
together. They are formal Amendments of a drafting nature to bring the references into line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 13, leave out ("section 81 of the Road Traffic Act 1960") and insert ("section 28 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 19, leave out from first ("and") to end of line 21 and insert ("sections 28, 29, 31, 32, 52, 53 and 96 of the said Act of 1967").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Byelaws]:
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved in subsection (1), after "land", where that word occurs a second time, to insert ", road, path". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 18A, 18B, 18C, and 18E, and also Amendments 25B, 25C, 25D, 25E, 25F and 25G. In doing so, I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the very short notice he has had of these Amendments.
There has been some apprehension that some parts of the land such as roads and paths, particularly such places as tow-paths near the towns which may be used for fishing, will not be eligible for access agreements if they are outwith the areas scheduled as countryside. Some of us have been assured that such areas will be covered by Part III of the Bill. If, however, they are covered, surely they should also be subject to by-laws and should also be able to be controlled by wardens. This would not appear to be the case at the moment. The clause contains the word "land", which I feel is not an adequate cover for either roads or footpaths. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 11, after ("land") insert (", road, path")—(Lord Burton.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Burton, not to press any of these Amendments, since I am assured that the law on these matters,
1584
which by definition is peculiar at times, shows that there is no doubt that "land" includes roads and paths. So without adding the words of the Amendment, the noble Lord can be assured that roads and paths will be covered by the word "land".
LORD BURTON: My Lords, having received that satisfactory assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) to insert
"( ) the making of unnecessary noise."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment was discussed in Committee when I think I had the support of almost everyone who spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. His difficulty was that he did not want to insert "the making of unnecessary noise" in subsection (2) because of the difficulty of inserting the particular into the general. However, as subsection (2) begins:
"Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, byelaws under that subsection may prohibit, restrict or regulate…"
it seems to me that it would have been perfectly appropriate for "the making of unnecessary noise" to be inserted among (a), (b), (c) and (d). It seems to me to be every bit as general as the depositing of rubbish, the leaving of litter and the lighting of fires, all of which I am delighted to see covered in the clause.
The making of unnecessary noise is becoming more and more of a problem. I am sure that it is not only we humans who are worried by excessive noise: it can easily disturb animals and birds. It is, of course, going to be extremely difficult to prevent people from disturbing animals and birds in this way, but one would have some chance on this aspect if "the making of unnecessary noise" were included in the clause so that one of the conditions which could be included in byelaws would be that one must not make any noise while on land subject to an access agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 35, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Duke said, during Committee stage I expressed some sympathy with this Amendment. I have had another look at it and have had a full discussion with

1585
my advisers to see whether it can be accepted. Much as I still sympathise with the noble Duke's general argument, I am afraid that, from a drafting point of view, we cannot accept the Amendment. In the first place, we are content that what the noble Duke wishes to achieve is already fully possible under the Bill as it is so that there is no point of substance involved. Secondly, the making of noise is essentially a part of behaviour and it is already covered specifically, and in my view preferably, in subsection (1) of the clause.
The noble Lord's Amendment does not say "the making of noise", but "the making of unnecessary noise", and that is where the difficulty arises. As soon as the word "unnecessary" is included it becomes obvious that there are some varieties of noise which are not going to be excluded. One has therefore to be able to differentiate between a "necessary" noise and an "unnecessary" noise. To take a very simple example, a baby crying can be a very unnecessary noise to people other than its immediate relatives, who do not appreciate that it should be inflicted upon them. They would not consider that it was a necessary noise if it arose from the fact that the baby was hungry and its mother had neglected to feed it. It could be argued that it would have been quite unnecessary if she had done her job properly. But from the point of view of the baby, as distinct from the others, the noise is extremely necessary. It is the only way by which it can direct attention to the fact that it is hungry. So it is possible to have a noise which is quite unnecessary to one set of people, but quite necessary to another.
The noble Duke is seeking to import into the Bill a word which the courts would be quite incapable of defining either satisfactorily or consistently. Our view is that it is only when noise becomes offensive that it constitutes a nuisance. If it is offensive to other people, then Clause 54(1) covers it; if it is offensive to birds or animals, as the noble Duke suggested—and it would have to be deliberately so, in any case, to create the offence—then it would be covered by head (d) of Schedule 2.
Therefore I come back to the same conclusion as the drafters of the Bill:
1586
that what the noble Duke seeks to do is already covered in the Bill, and that to add the words which he proposes would not create any new offence. It would, in fact, provide what might be a very difficult defence to refute, if what was proposed to be dealt with was that a person had created an unnecessary noise. I hope the noble Duke will accept that I have gone very thoroughly into the matter, and that it is not lack of sympathy which prevents me from accepting the Amendment, but the fact that if we accept it (the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is not present, so I can say this) it is more likely than not to defeat the purpose which he has in mind.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether the Bill covers the unnecessary use of transistor radios which are becoming such an appalling problem in our beauty spots to-day?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I shall not venture on a definition of the necessary or unnecessary use of transistor radios, but we shall have another go at that one later on. There is another Amendment down on the making of bye-laws, if I remember rightly, which covers a variety of instruments including transistor radios.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think the noble Lord and I are almost at one. The only thing which is not covered in the Bill, and which I should like to see covered, is the fact that a person can easily upset a bird or an animal by playing a transistor radio, which he might not do at all wilfully. I am not quite sure how such a person could be caught, but it might be good for the education of people if they realised that, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, the sudden playing of a transistor radio in the middle of a mountain may easily upset a nesting bird or an animal; and I am simply trying to cover this point. I quite see the noble Lord's point, that my Amendment is fallacious, and I must obviously withdraw it; but I hope that he can see his way to accepting my other Amendment to Schedule 2, dealing with transistor radios, gramophones, tape recorders et cetera. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Powers of the Forestry Commissioners]:
5.45 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment repairs an unintentional omission from the Bill and maintains the existing requirement for felling licences on access land and in country parks. It is in line with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The definition of "public open space" in section 9(6) of the Forestry Act 1967 shall be amended by inserting after "1949"the words"or of Part II or section 48 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967".").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could inform us a little further of the effect of this Amendment. He was good enough to write to me about this, and I understand that it will require that on all access land for which there are access agreements or orders a felling licence will have to be obtained before trees are cut down. Is this the effect of the Amendment? If it is, I am not quite certain whether all of my noble friends will consider that this is, in fact, necessary. Could it not be provided for specifically in the agreement, rather than make a general provision?
LORD HUGHES: No. my Lords. We are seeking merely to maintain the position as it is. The Forestry Act makes felling licences unnecessary on public open space but defines certain exceptions to it. These include access land under the 1949 Act. The 1949 Act does not, of course, deal with country parks. At least some of these are likely to be of considerable extent, and some may be established on privately owned land. We are advised that on private land it is possible for situations to arise in which neither the local planning authority (by tree preservation order) nor the Forestry Commission (by felling licensing control) could prevent felling, unless we except country parks from public open space. This is not the creation of a new principle, but is merely treating country parks in the same way as access land is treated under the 1949 Act.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61:
Improvement of waterways for purposes of open-air recreation.
61.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following section, a local planning authority whose area consists of or includes land which is part of the countryside may, as respects any waterway in or adjoining that land and within their area, carry out such work and do such other things as may appear to them expedient for facilitating the use of the waterway by the public for sailing, boating, bathing, fishing or other water sport or recreation, but in doing so shall take into consideration the disturbance of any fishing rights over the waterway which may be caused thereby.
5.48 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "within their area", to insert: "on land acquired by them for the purposes of this section". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this clause deals with the improvement of waterways for the purposes of open-air recreation, and I should like to speak to the two Amendments, Nos. 20 and 21 together. The clause deals with the local planning authority's powers in relation to the improvement of waterways. The first Amendment proposes that the powers to improve waterways given by this clause should be confined to land acquired by the authority for the purposes of the clause.
The second Amendment proposes the addition of a subsection. In considering the implications of this clause, it may well be that difficulties will arise as to the ultimate liability for the works which have been erected or constructed by the planning authority on land not belonging to them. The new subsection therefore imposes an obligation on the authority to maintain any such works, and would also make them liable for any damage to a person or property resulting from the carrying out or condition of such works. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 43, after ("area") insert ("on land acquired by them for the purposes of this section").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a repetition of an Amendment which the briefness of the time at our disposal in Committee prevented us from discussing then. I think it has to be considered with the series of Government Amendments made at that stage to Clauses 61 and 62, the chief of which was to add subsection (1) to Clause 62. Those Amendments, which your Lordships accepted in Committee, made it plain that the powers given by Clause 61 can only be exercised either by agreement with persons having an interest in the land to which they relate, or after the completion of the ordinary statutory procedures relating to access orders or compulsory purchase.
The present Amendment, proposed by the noble Baroness, is unduly restrictive in saying
"on land acquired by them for the purposes of this section".
I think it will be generally agreed that the exercise of the powers of Clause 61 should not be limited to land or water owned by local planning authorities. Provided they have made an agreement with the owners and occupiers, it is reasonable that they should be able to exercise these powers on any waterway to which the public have access.
The Amendment would also nullify subsections (2) to (7), which make it possible for local planning authorities to provide works to facilitate recreational use of water owned by other public bodies, like canals and reservoirs; and I am quite certain that the noble Lady did not intend this. I think I should prefer to deal with Amendment No. 21 separately, because it is not quite the same as Amendment No. 20 although it is to the same clause. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel that in the Amendments which have been made and with the explanations of how this will work she has already got what she had hoped this Amendment would achieve.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: If the noble Lord assures me that that is so, I will certainly believe him, and withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I dealt with this Amendment in my previous speech. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) Where any works are carried out by a local planning authority under the powers conferred on them by this section it shall be the duty of the authority to maintain such works and the authority shall be liable for any damage to person or property resulting from the carrying out or condition of such works").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am advised that the wording of subsection (1) of the clause is wide enough to include maintenance, which is in the noble Baroness's Amendment. We do not accept that there is a need, or that it is desirable, to impose on local planning authorities a statutory duty to maintain every work they create, and I think that as I go on the noble Lady will accept this. If we were to do so, we should in fact be imposing a duty on the local authority to maintain the work in perpetuity, and it could involve the local authority in continuing to maintain a work which had fallen into disuse through change of circumstances, simply because it was no longer needed. Their alternative would be the troublesome and expensive one of promoting special legislation to relieve them of the duty. And here, perhaps, I may remind the noble Baroness of the difficulty which some authorities have in relation to, say, piers. A permissive power to maintain is much more satisfactory, and it does not absolve the authority from liability for damages resulting from the way in which it has or has not maintained the works.
As regards the second part of the Amendment, I would remind your Lordships that in Committee we deleted from Clause 46(2) some words, which were in the Bill when it came from another place, that would have absolved local authorities from any liability for damage resulting from the condition of any public right of way maintained by them. Under the Bill as it came to us the local authority had no responsibility. We did not think that this was right. We thought local authorities should be responsible for the normal consequences of their acts. We therefore took out this absolution. The noble Baroness proposes to put in a positive condition, saying that they are under a liability. My advice is that the way we did it was

1591
perfectly correct. As soon as we deprived them of the absolution, they became subject to the ordinary Common Law, which imposes on them the liability which the noble Baroness proposes to add. We do not wish to weaken in any way the Common Law liabilities of local authorities by putting in a specific provision of this kind, and I therefore hope that she will accept that in this clause the Bill does not require further amendment.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask a question in explanation of a point which is not at all clear to me? On the assumption that a river is a watercourse, are we to understand that where a river in fact runs along the border between England and Scotland then this Amendment, and in fact the rest of this clause, concern one bank of the river and not the other? Also, does the last subsection, subsection (9), enable a local planning authority to acquire land on only one side of such a river, or can it do it on the other side, too, in an area not subject to the authority of the Secretary of State?
LORD HUGHES: I wonder if the noble Lord would draw my attention to the wording to which he is directing his remarks.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The entire clause, my Lords. The entire clause refers to waterways. The Amendment refers to waterways and works in connection with waterways. I wondered what the position would be where a river marking the boundary between England and Scotland was in fact a "waterway" within the meaning of this clause. I would have given the noble Lord warning, except that the point has only just occurred to me while I have been sitting here.
LORD HUGHES: I wish the answer would occur to me as easily as the question occurred to the noble Lord. Would it be permissible if we followed the procedure which worked satisfactorily on an earlier occasion—that is, if we bring it in, quite irrelevantly, in a few minutes?
LORD INGLEWOOD: So far as I am concerned, yes.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I quite realise that one does not want to make anything restrictive through this. The only thing that depresses me a little bit is this. I agree with the noble Lord that of course there are certain works which may be put up now—let us say in the year 1968—for recreation, and so on, which in 1978 would be not used and derelict; and he instanced piers. I think it would be a thousand pities if, as a result of this Bill, there were dotted about the country and around the rivers, and so on, a number of derelict objects which nobody—neither the local authority nor the landlord—had the responsibility to remove; because it is an expensive thing. This might lead to rather an unfortunate situation.
To take the question of piers, the "dead" piers, as I call them, that one finds in the West Highlands are a very gloomy relic of the past, and one wishes that somebody had the responsibility of removing them, although I agree that it might be expensive. But they really are not an attractive asset to the West Highlands. While I imagine that under the waterway clause the inland dereliction would be less, because under this clause it would be only in connection with the rivers or the lochs, it might still be considerable. However, if the noble Lord feels that we cannot put this obligation on the local authority I will not press it any further. But I think that the Commission, when it is set up, might consider this point, because it would be a thousand pities if a number of derelict objects were scattered around the countryside and nobody had the responsibility to remove them. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 [Exercise of powers under section 61]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on" and insert "in relation to". The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, had an Amendment to Clause 61 on the Order Paper which unfortunately time did not allow us to discuss. It appeared to arise from a doubt as to whether Clause 61 was drafted widely enough to allow local planning authorities to make adequate

1593
arrangements for access to waterways in order to facilitate their use. We have looked at the clause again from this aspect, and I am advised that it is fully adequate. We have observed, however, that the wording of Clause 62 might cast a slight doubt on the matter, and this Amendment is designed to remove that doubt. At the same time it widens the protection which subsection (1) gives to the rights of persons with an interest in land to correspond with the scope of the powers given to local planning authorities by Clause 61.
I hope that this Amendment meets with your Lordships' approval.
In taking the earliest opportunity of replying to the question put at the end of the previous Amendment, I would direct the noble Lord's attention to Clause 79(2) which states:
"This Act, except in so far as it relates to the amendment of the House of Comons Disqualification Act 1957, shall extend to Scotland only."
Therefore, a river bank in England is not in any way affected by the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 21, leave out ("on") and insert ("in relation to").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I with respect say that I am much less concerned with that last subsection. It seems to me to be administrative nonsense to have two different authorities dealing with different banks of the same river—particularly where it is running through very beautiful country and might for some reason or another become part of a National Park. In circumstances like this it would seem sense that both banks of the river should be subject to the same authority.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would add that it would certainly not authorise us to acquire land in England, or to authorise the carrying out of works there. I can, however, point out that the 1949 Act provisions are complementary; so if there is a need to do something simultaneously the Southern authorities can act under the 1949 Act and the Northern authorities can act under these proposals. It is not completely unknown for us to work together. If all else fails the noble
1594
Lord can promote a Private Member's Bill transferring the Southern bank to Scotland. We should probably be quite happy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 63:
Provision of recreational facilities by local water authorities
63.—(1) Subject to subsection (5) of this section a local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 may, if it appears to them reasonable to do so—

(a) permit the use by members of the public, for the purposes of any form of recreation, of any waterway or land in which the authority have an interest;

(b) provide, or otherwise make available, facilities for use by persons resorting to any such waterway or land for the purposes of any such form of recreation.

(2) The powers of a local water authority under subsection (1) above shall, in the case of a waterway or land in which the authority have an interest but which they do not own, be exercisable only with the consent of the owners thereof:
Provided that where those powers are to be exercised in relation to a particular part of a waterway the consent of the owners of that part only need be obtained if the authority are satisfied that the exercise of those powers will not prejudice the rights or interests of other owners.
6.3 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to delete the proviso. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to Clause 63 which deals with the provision of recreational facilities by the local water authority. We feel that there are some rather unusual provisions included under subsection (2) of this clause. Generally, in the case of a reservoir the contiguous proporietors have an equal and concurrent right in it unless the original agreement in terms of which the solum of the reservoir was acquired provides otherwise. There does not appear to be any reason for the proviso to this subsection. The Amendment, for the reasons stated, therefore suggests that the proviso be deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to the Amendment of the noble Baroness and to

1595
my own Amendment which is the next to be moved and which arises from the considerations to which the noble Baroness has referred. I should say first of all that the Amendment which the noble Baroness has moved is one which was down at a previous stage, but which was withdrawn without discussion because of lack of time. There is a distinction to be drawn between reservoirs and lochs on the one hand, and rivers on the other hand. If a loch is in question the contiguous proprietors have at Common Law an equal and concurrent right in it, although there may be agreement or provision in the titles to the contrary. The proviso to subsection (2) would not affect the right of each owner to be consulted in the normal case or in a case when the works would affect him.
The practical reasons for the proviso become clearer when we consider a long river or canal. I think it would be obvious that minor developments could be undertaken at one end of a long waterway without affecting in the slightest the interests of proprietors at the other end. For instance, there might be a desire to have the use of small boats on a section of a river which would not affect anybody except the proprietor whose land was adjoining. I am certain that there would be complaining letters in the newspapers if proprietors 70 miles away were consulted about such a proposal. The authority, of course, will rely on the advice of their professional staff in deciding just how far they should consult. They will get good guidance from their officials as to who are the landowners who ought to be consulted; and in some cases there would be landowners who would want to be consulted as well as those who ought. This is where local experience counts for so much.
Your Lordships will recall that we added Clause 62(1) to the Bill in Committee in order to make it clear that it was not our intention that the powers of local planning authorities in Clause 61 should override the ordinary legal rights of the owners and occupiers. In order to allay any fears that there is anything in Clause 63 which overrides these rights, I have put down Amendment No. 24 which relates to Clause 63, and is in similar terms to the Amendment which has already been accepted by your Lordships
1596
to Clause 61. I hope that with these explanations, and with this further action that is to be taken on Clause 63 in Amendment 24 the noble Baroness will accept that the Government have gone all the way necessary to meet her points.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord very much. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of this section shall not authorise any authority, body or person to do or permit anything in relation to a waterway or land in which any other person has an interest if apart from this section the doing or permitting thereof would be actionable at his instance by virtue of that interest and he does not consent to the doing or permitting thereof.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House that I take Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. Both are merely drafting Amendments consequential on the enacting of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 33, at end insert—
(", and any reference to a local water authority shall be construed as including a reference to a water development board within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Wardens]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "may" and insert "shall, unless the owners and occupiers agree otherwise". The noble Duke said: My Lords, we now come to the clause dealing with wardens. Under it, local authorities can appoint such numbers of wardens as they consider appropriate on any ground over which an access agreement or access order is made, and in relation to which by-laws are or could be made. I can visualise one difficulty here. I feel that in the making of access agreements one point of disagreement between the local authority and the owner and/or occupier is likely

1597
to be the provision of wardens. I should think that the warden service is probably going to be the most expensive part of this Bill so far as the local authorities are concerned, and that therefore they will be less keen on appointing wardens. So I feel that the owners and/or occupiers ought to have the right to insist on wardens if they agree to an access agreement or if an access order is made over their land.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will undoubtedly say that in the case of an agreement it is freely-made and that therefore it is up to the owner and/or occupier to come to terms with the local authority about wardens. But I can easily visualise cases where the provision of wardens will be the only stumbling block to an agreement. I think this is a pity, because it would take much longer to get an access order, it would cost more money, and at the end nobody would be better off. Therefore I would suggest that if either the owner or the occupier consider wardens are necessary, the local planning authority should be made to appoint such number of wardens as it considered appropriate. It would still have control over the number of wardens and I imagine that in many cases a part-time warden, or a warden shared with another area over which there is an access agreement, would be more than adequate. But I think that there may be a stumbling block to access agreements unless this provision is inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 43, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, unless the owners and occupiers agree otherwise").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
6.11 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, one of the disadvantages of writing a long letter to the noble Duke is that before he speaks he knows what I am going to say in answer. The letter was written not necessarily to give him information but in the hope that he would withdraw the Amendment. However, it makes it easier for me to reply, since the noble Duke has divided his remarks into two: one part relating to access agreements and the other referring to access orders. The noble Duke is perfectly correct when he says that in negotiating an agreement it is quite reasonable that the owner should say, "If I am going to agree, one of the conditions which should be in the agreement is that
1598
there ought to be a warden or two". It could be the other way round; an owner might say, "I do not think there is need for any wardens. You may think that there is a need, and if you want to appoint them I have no objection, but I am not insisting on it."
My Lords, if we did what the noble Duke suggests we should be saying that it shall be a condition of any agreement that one party to the agreement shall have the exclusive right to say that wardens must be appointed, and this would be quite contrary to the spirit of the agreement. I do not think it right that a local authority which was genuinely anxious to make an agreement but was not persuaded of the necessity to appoint wardens should be placed in a position that it could get an agreement only by accepting as a charge on the public purse the appointment of people as wardens. Such an obligation would be at variance with remarks made earlier about the burdens which will be placed on local authorities who have to find their share of expenditure under the Bill. While I thought some of the previous fears were a little exaggerated—and I said that not only here but at Aviemore earlier in the year—I do not think I can properly be a party to the existence of conditions which would impose the need for expenditure on the ratepayers, not following the considered opinion of those who have to levy the rate but simply at the behest of another party to an agreement.
I would expect that normally it would not be unduly difficult to reach agreement on these matters. But if one party feels so strongly that he will not make an agreement without a requirement for wardens, and the other party feels strongly that wardens are not needed and therefore cannot make an agreement which includes them, we have conditions under which an access agreement is not possible, and we have to accept that. It does not seem to me in any way satisfactory to attempt to resolve such a difficulty by depriving one party of his rights in the matter. In effect, that is what acceptance of the Amendment would do. If, however, it did come to the rare case of an access order, the Secretary of State would be the final authority, and he, after hearing all that was to be said by both parties, would say either that there were to be no wardens

1599
or that there would be a warden or wardens. Difficult and cumbersome though that may be, I think it is the fair way to deal with the situation.
No one wants to enter into what purports to be an agreement with a prior condition imposed on him which is not imposed on the other party. I am quite certain that in the circumstances, although the noble Duke is seeking to facilitate the making of agreements as quickly as possible, his sense of justice will make him realise that he is allowing speed to take priority over fairness in attempting to make an Amendment of this kind.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, this is one difficulty which arises through our not having had a full Committee stage. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I have moved too far in the opposite direction. I should like to insert some provision that if the only stumbling block is the provision of wardens, instead of an access order having to go before the Secretary of State the matter could go to the Secretary of State purely on that score for his arbitration. Obviously, that would need a lot more thought and the provision of a much more difficult piece of drafting than I am capable of achieving. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, because I feel that its acceptance would probably be going too far the other way; but I hope this provision of wardens will not be a stumbling block very often, though I am afraid that on occasions it may be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 28, at end insert—
("(g) water development boards within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Accounts and reports of the Commission]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, Clause 71(6) compels the Commission to make an annual report as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year. It seems to me that the Commission are unlikely to have been in existence
1600
sufficiently long in 1967 to make their report worth while, and it would be a waste of time and public money if the Commission had to publish a report of their activities for that year. I do not think the Commission can possibly be set up until well on into November. I hope, therefore, that the Government and the noble Lord will see their way to accept this very small Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 40, after ("year") insert ("subsequent to 1967").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Powers of entry]:
6.19 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (3), after the last "the", to insert "owner and". The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is the clause relating to powers of entry, and as the clause is drafted, for the purposes of surveying land in connection with the various matters under this Bill
"any person…duly authorised…by the Secretary of State, the Commission or other authority having power so to exercise functions…may, at any reasonable time, enter upon the land".
Then it lays down the conditions under which they can enter upon the land, and one of the conditions is that 14 days' warning has to be given to the occupier. I feel that the owner should be warned too, for three reasons: first, because the owner is easy to trace and the occupier sometimes is not. Occupiers change, and this adds to the difficulty. Even on our own estate, where a road was being straightened, the county council duly negotiated with us and we agreed to sell them the land. They informed the occupier, as they thought. He happened to be a farmer called MacDonald, but there was another tenant farmer called MacDonald who lived two miles away and he was informed instead. The first MacDonald was astonished to see, bright and early one morning, a massive bulldozer in one of his fields, starting to straighten the road. It took six months to sort the matter out. If the owner had been notified, that difficulty could have been overcome.
Although entry is more likely to interfere with the occupier's interest, it could also interfere with the owner's interest. The owner might be planning a shoot on ground over which access was required on a particular day, and obviously it would be for the convenience of the owner to know that the Commission were going to require access on that day.
The proviso in subsection (4) refers to subsection (3) above, but when the considerations authorised by subsection (4) are borne in mind I think the owner as well as the occupier should be informed. I should be quite happy if the noble Lord said that it would be too difficult to accept my Amendment to insert "owner" in line 36, but when the Commission use the powers conferred under subsection (4) I think the owner as well as the occupier ought to be informed. At the moment the notice is in a form identical with that in subsection (3) and only the occupier is to be informed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 36, after ("the") insert ("owner and").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, powers of entry must carry with them a certain amount of inconvenience, and because of this Parliament has traditionally granted such powers sparingly. This clause, however, follows the well trodden path established after many earlier battles. It is, of course, the occupier who is liable to be disturbed by an invasion of surveyors, and not the owner. That is not to say, however, that the owner's interests are being disregarded. If, following a survey, any further procedures are embarked upon, the owners will receive full and timeous notification. But at this preliminary stage they will, I think, for by far the most part, be willing to be left out of this notification. In any event, they are almost certain to have had preliminary indications earlier of the nature of whatever proposal is under consideration. Almost the first thing that happens is that the owner is notified of the possibility, and making a survey is the first step which is taken. I make the point strongly that serving notice on the owner as well as the occupier serves no useful purpose, except in the rare case of shooting, to which the noble Duke has referred. In saying that,
1602
I am sure the noble Duke is aware that I am not giving him any assurance in relation to his next Amendment. I hope he will not press this one.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I do not feel that the noble Lord answered me regarding subsection (4), which is a much more worrying point. I cannot see why people should be allowed to start making boreholes if they have not informed the owner that they are going to do so, and so far as I can see no obligation is laid down in the Bill that they should inform the owner. The subsection provides:
"…that a person shall not carry out any works authorised by this subsection unless notice of his intention so to do has been included in the notice required by subsection (3) above,…"
I should have thought that the owner had a very real interest when people start making boreholes on his land. It is not the subsection (3) position that worries me so much as that things can be done under subsection (4) under the same authority as under subsection (3).
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Amendment to which we are speaking refers only to subsection (3).
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, subsection (4) refers to "subsection (3) above" in the last line of page 58.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I will have a look at that before we finish with the clause. The noble Duke has another Amendment on a totally different point.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been prepared to accept the last Amendment, I should have been delighted not to move this one, but I wish to know in what circumstances he visualises the Countryside Commission boring away for minerals on somebody's land. It seems to me to be totally outside their functions and something that ought to be discouraged rather than encouraged. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 41, leave out ("or the presence of minerals therein").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that we do not commonly regard it as the Commission's business to go about boring for minerals, but there may be circumstances where it would be necessary for them to do just that sort of thing in order to find out, if it were proposed to carry out operations on a site which was thought to be suitable, whether or not there were minerals which might be worked, if they had reason to believe that there were minerals there, because such a discovery might determine that that was the wrong place to go ahead with the project. That would be a reasonable cause for boring. I am told that the provision is in common form and if it were not inserted a difficult owner might say that the Commission had no power to bore for minerals and they could not send their surveyors on to his land. I think it would be wrong to obtain the necessary information by a subterfuge, by pretending to be boring for something else, and that it should be done in a straightforward way. There is precedent for this in other legislation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, the noble Lord has convinced me that he has a case here, I must admit, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved in subsection (5), after "necessary", to insert:
"provided that their names had been included in the notice required by subsection (3) above."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, again this Amendment is concerned with people entering on land. I have ventured to suggest that under subsection (5), where a person who is authorised to enter upon land may take with him such other persons as may be necessary, those persons should be named when the original notice is sent. On thinking it over, perhaps this is too restrictive. What I am trying to get at is that the original notice should give some indication of the number of people who are likely to be entering on the land. Obviously, if notice is given 14 days before that Mr. So-and-So is going to enter on the land, and the second man who just holds the end of the tape is ill, they should be able to send somebody else. I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I should like to know whether, when powers are taken under this clause, administratevly, it would be
1604
possible to show the number of people who are likely to be entering on the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Duke has spoken to this Amendment. There will be in the notice the name of the person who is responsible and upon whom will be placed the duty of seeing that the premises are left as securely as he found them. But, as the noble Duke accepts, it would be unreasonable to say that the apprentice who carried the level or held the other end of the chain should also be named in the notice, and it would have to start all over again if somebody was ill and another name had to be shown. In the normal course of events one would expect that two, or perhaps three, people would be involved in an operation of this kind. I think I could accept it that in circumstances where a larger than the normal number of people were taking part in the operation, when the notice was given we could perhaps arrange for the Commission to inform the person concerned that a party of seven people would be descending on him. I suppose one of the things the noble Duke has in mind is that in the Highlands they would probably wish to receive them with proper hospitality, and they would not wish to be prepared for a party of three if a party of seven were going to turn up.
I have just been handed a note on the point raised by the noble Duke. I think the fairest way is just to read what is before me. I hope that this does not get me into trouble, but I have found that I cannot read these things and talk about them at the same time. I will read what I have here: "The Duke of Atholl's point. We think he has a point here, and it would not be right to bore without the owners' being informed. We would propose that the Secretary of State should give a direction to the Commission under Clause 1(6) to this effect." This, I think, is rather ingenious on the part of my advisers, because obviously at this stage we cannot amend this just to take care of the point. I hope the noble Duke will accept two things: first,

1605
that he has been ingenious in discovering this; and, second, that my advisers have been equally ingenious in finding a solution.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I really must congratulate the noble Lord's advisers on producing that answer so quickly. I think it is a stroke of genius, and I am sure it will cover the point. I hope that at the same time the Secretary of State, under Clause 1(6), will give instructions to the Countryside Commission that when a large number of people are coming in—and I imagine that this will happen only when subsection (4), the boring subsection, is being used—some indication should be given in the notice of the number and the machinery which they will be bringing with them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [General Restrictions to be observed by persons having access by virtue of Part II of this Act to land which is or which gives or forms part of access to Open Country]:
Section 11(1) of this Act shall not apply to a person who, upon the land in question, commits any crime or offence, or who without lawful authority,—
(d) wilfully kills, takes or molests any animal, bird or fish or takes or injures any eggs or nests;
6.35 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (d), after "takes", to insert "disturbs". The noble Duke said: My Lords, the word "disturbs" was removed in another place, and the reason why I have put down this Amendment is because I wondered why it was removed. Normally you disturb rather than "molest" animals, birds—possibly not fish—and particularly birds' nests. I am not entirely happy that if you continually put a bird off its nest you are molesting it. Do you have to physically touch it or touch its eggs in order to molest it, or does the act of disturbing the bird from its nest the whole time obviously make its eggs addled?
I am rather disappointed that the word "disturbs" was removed. As it is covered by the adjective "wilfully", I should have thought that the fears expressed in another place that it might be construed
1606
as being unwilful simply do not apply. I cannot see what was worrying them about this, and perhaps the noble Lord can give an explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 20, after ("takes") insert ("disturbs").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, concern was expressed in another place (I am not quite certain of this, but I think it was by the Opposition) that by committing one of the relatively minor offences in Schedule 2 as it then stood—and cases instanced were of a person inadvertently putting a bird to flight or knocking off a flower (I say "knocking off" in the correct definition)—a person otherwise legitimately on access land might lose his protection under Clause 11(1), and in the event of a subsequent accident on the land find himself in a very poor position regarding damages under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1960.
The Government were impressed by these arguments, which I think in fairness I should say were pressed from both sides in another place, and it was decided to delete the word "disturbs", which it was felt was more likely to be done accidentally than otherwise. It was also felt that usually disturbance would not be as harmful to a bird or animal, whereas in a case of deliberate harrying the wrongdoer would be caught by the term "molest" which still remains in the Bill. The Amendment to remove the word "disturbs" was made after careful consideration, because we felt that the consequences to an individual of taking him outside the protection otherwise afforded against the infringement of something of this kind were so serious that they could not be contemplated. I am quite certain that neither my friends in another place nor the noble Duke's friends in another place would take kindly to the restoration of a word which, with a surprising and unusual degree of unanimity, they were content to take out of the Bill.
I therefore hope that the noble Duke will accept that both sides in another place and the Government are persuaded that the purposes of protection to animals and birds is not in any way diminished by the removal of the word "disturbs", and that it does not place them under any unnecessary hazard.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.38 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after paragraph (j) to insert:
"( ) plays any musical instrument, gramophone, wireless or tape recorder."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to see his way to accept this Amendment. We failed to get "unnecessary noise" into Clause 64, and I feel it is only right that among this vast list of things detailed in Schedule 2 there should somewhere appear these words:
"plays any musical instrument, gramophone, wireless or tape recorder."
I do not think land which is subject to access agreements or access orders, or even a countryside park, is the right place for people to play these musical instruments. If they want to play the bagpipes, then I should have thought they should play them in a soundproof room, rather than on the side of a road on land over which an access agreement applies. I know that the B.T.A. are inclined to send out posters of a piper playing along the banks of Loch Lomond in the belief that this will fetch the Americans, but I rather wonder whether it does when they hear the pipes played close to by an amateur performer. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment and that the noise will be a little reduced by having these words in Schedule 2, because I am sure that this Schedule will be regarded as a countryside code, and I feel that in our countryside code we ought to tell people that we do not recommend the playing of these somewhat noisy instruments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 37, at end insert said paragraph.—(Duke of Atholl.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I have only a very small proportion of Scottish blood in my veins, and I have no right to intervene in this debate at this stage of the Bill. However, I should like to support very strongly the Amendment just proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. There is no doubt that this playing of musical instruments (if that is
1608
the correct way to describe small transistor sets) is spreading very rapidly. Transistor sets can be obtained of such small size that you can put them in your pocket, or you can almost wear them as a wrist watch. They can be absolutely maddening to anybody who is either not listening to them very closely or dislikes the kind of music they play, as a rule. They certainly do not lend to the peace of the countryside, so I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, may I say a few brief words in support? I think I am right in saying that in most municipal parks now under the local by-laws—and I think in the Royal Parks—it is one of the offences to play these things; and I would support this Amendment on that count. If it is an offence to play a transistor in a municipal park, is it not even more important that it should be barred from the countryside in Scotland?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, one of the last things I heard before leaving home this morning was the item which appears on the radio at twenty minutes to nine. I think it is called "Today's Newspapers". I heard the tail end of it, and so I do not know which newspaper I am referring to; but apparently there was an article in one paper which alleged that this Government searches out things which are enjoyable and says, "Here is enjoyment, let us put an end to it". The breathalyser was given as one instance. I think it was sparked off by the announcement yesterday that coupons are to be made illegal in relation to cigarettes. This was the reaction: that the Government are a lot of kill-joys.
This is a case in which the Government are determined they are not going to have that particular label tied around their necks. What we have been asked to do is place a general prohibition on the playing of musical instruments, gramophones, wirelesses and tape recorders. Incidentally, the use of the word "playing" in respect to a tape recorder presents us with a difficulty. Some have argued that to play a tape recorder means use a tape recorder for the same sort of purpose as a gramophone, of playing back sound, playing back music. But a tape recorder, of course, can be used the other way, for

1609
recording sounds, and in those circumstances it is difficult to imagine that it can be a nuisance to anybody. But it depends on how one interprets the word "play". It might be a prohibition on recording bird sounds with a tape recorder.
However, the fact is that the Amendment, as it stands, places an absolute prohibition on the playing of these four listed varieties of apparatus. The Government's point of view is that the use of a musical instrument, a radio and so on, is not in itself objectionable. I do not think the noble Duke in fact is suggesting that it is. The suggestion which was made—that the playing of a transistor radio can be very objectionable—is one to which we would not take any exception. If it had been argued that it is always objectionable, I would have disagreed, but I must accept the premise that under certain conditions it can be objectionable. It is not that we should prohibit it, but that we should seek to eliminate the objectionable use of these instruments, which is a reasonable thing to put forward.
It comes back to the same argument as before: that it is accepted that the enjoyment of the countryside will inevitably produce some noise. The noise in itself is not prohibited. What we want to stop is noise to such an extent that it is objectionable to other people. This is another form of seeking to control a noise of an objectionable nature which becomes an absolute nuisance. But put in its absolute form, the control would stop a great deal more than just the objectionable noise. I agree that unreasonable noise created by these instruments can destroy all the pleasure that is otherwise gained by access to open country, and that some control may be needed. The right place, however, to exercise control over unreasonable noise is in the by-laws.
I indicated in resisting an earlier Amendment that adequate powers were available under Clause 54(1). Following hard upon our discussion about the word "disturb" I think it will be agreed that this Schedule is not the right place to seek to correct the position. Also, it would be only in an exceptional case that a total prohibition of the kind envisaged would be justified, even in a by-law. I can accept that there would be a particular case where a total prohibition would be desirable. If I might try to find something on the spur of the moment, in
1610
the vicinity of the osprey's nest, for example, any sort of noise could have a very serious effect. I would accept that: I think practically everybody will accept it. A by-law which prohibited the use of any of these instruments or apparatus in such circumstances would be one to which no reasonable person would object. But to say in this Bill that in any of the open country to which the public is going to have access it should become an offence to play a musical instrument, or to have a transistor radio, no matter how small it is, even playing it with an earpiece in the ear (in which case no one hears it but the person who is using it), would be quite unrealistic.
Also, to deprive a person of the right of tape recording a natural sound of the countryside, which he wishes to take back with him, a permanent or frequent reminder of the enjoyment of this recorded on the spot (and it is not going to disturb anybody at all by recording these sounds) would be unrealistic. I think the noble Duke can achieve his point, and I assure him we wish to see all necessary controls made possible in suitable cases by the wording of the by-laws. But in this case I am unwilling to have the killjoy label tied around my neck, as I would do if I were to accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I still think it is a pity that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment. Incidentally, I am informed that tape recorders are switched to "Play" when they are making the noise, and to "Record" when they are recording the noise. Therefore, I should have thought that in order to play a tape recorder you must have it at "Play", and not "Record". So you would be all right if you were recording bird song.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must say that it depends on one's advisers. I have this morning been advised both ways.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Perhaps it also depends on the brand of tape recorder you happen to have at the particular moment. I personally think that in these areas subject to access agreements the making of any form of music, or playing of a gramophone or wireless, ought to be banned, because I do not

1611
believe that that is what they are there for. But I can see that there would be difficulties if we put this provision into the Bill and someone was playing his transistor very softly and the bridge over which he was crossing collapsed. He might not be able to claim damages to which he would have been entitled, and I think this is a point we must consider.
Therefore, reluctantly, I feel that I ought to withdraw this Amendment. Once again, I would point out that one of our troubles is that we have not been able to discuss this matter on Committee stage, or the noble Lord might have been able to find some form of words which was acceptable both to the Government and to us on this side of the House, who appear to enjoy a much more silent life, or would like to enjoy a much more silent life, than the Government wish us to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD THE EARL OF DUNDONALD moved to add to Schedule 2:
" . A Local Authority when making By-laws under section 54 will set out the above offences either on the maps under section 26 or on the Notice Boards under section 28 and will define the penalties for committing any of these offences."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this Bill certain penalties are defined for owners or occupiers who commit certain offences. For example, a fine of £50 can be incurred under Clause 43. I would endorse what my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has said, that we did not have a chance of discussing Schedule 2 on the Committee stage. When I went through the Bill again carefully I found it odd to see no mention at all about penalties for those who commit offences (of whom we hope there will not be many) under Schedule 2.
A local authority are empowered under Clause 54 to make by-laws in relation to access agreements and orders, and under Clause 26 they are required to make maps of the areas concerned. That has been further amended to-day. Under Clause 28 they are empowered to erect and maintain notices indicating boundaries. It would seem to me that probably the maps, or reproductions of the maps, and the notices will both be together where the entrance is to the area over which access is to be gained. It would seem to me logical that the offences should be
1612
built into the notice, so that everybody knows what the offences are. At the moment I can find nothing as to how the public will find out what the offences are. It should be built into the notice, and, at the same time, under the by-laws the penalties should be set out. I think that this more or less falls into line with the practice of the National Parks, the municipal parks and the Royal Parks.
Amendment moved—
Page 64. line 39, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, local authorities, of course, make by-laws in a wide variety of circumstances and, while they are not under any legal obligation to display them, they normally do so at places where they can be seen by users of the facilities to which they relate. I am inclined to the view that this is a matter which can well be continued to be left to their discretion, and I hope that in these circumstances the noble Earl will not seek to press this Amendment, rather resting on the fact that, having raised the matter in this way in your Lordships' House, it will prove to be all that is necessary to ensure that local authorities deal with these by-laws in the same way as they would normally do in an ordinary public park.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his full answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.56 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Provisions as to making, confirmation, coming into operation and validity of certain orders]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 pre-empts No. 28. If, therefore, No. 27 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call No. 28.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in paragraph 1(3)(a), to omit head (i). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to Schedule 3, the last Schedule in the Bill, and I shall be very brief. My Amendment refers to paragraph 1(3)(a)(i) and (ii). Its purpose is briefly this. I would think it only right

1613
to serve notice of a proposal to make an access order or public path order on every owner, occupier and tenant within the area comprising the order. It is obligatory to serve notices on the local planning authorities or on statutory undertakers, who I think in any event ought to know what is going on and be conversant with what the Commission are doing. Owners and occupiers, however, are not in this position necessarily, and through no fault of their own they may not have knowledge of the proposal to create an access order or public path order. The Amendment therefore proposes to delete paragraph 1(3)(a)(i) so that the notice or orders would have to be given to all such persons.
Secondly, the Amendment also proposes the deletion of head (ii), on page 66. We do not consider that the affixing of a notice of a proposed order on some conspicuous object is a satisfactory means of bringing a proposal to promote an order to the notice of those concerned. I can think of the people who during election times stick up notices on telegraph poles, for instance, which one is apt to ignore because one feels they are not of any particular importance. I can think of notices stuck up in odd places, which people are supposed to look at, but nine times out of ten they do not. I consider that a written notification should be given to all those concerned in these cases in connection with these orders.
The noble Lord just now accepted, in dealing with another Amendment, the question of notifying boundaries, not only by putting up a notice, but also by marking them in other ways. I hope very much that he will realise that this is intended to be an entirely helpful proposal, and that I am most anxious that every means of notifying people, including that of a written notification, should be included in this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 66.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the provision to which the noble Baroness takes exception is a common one and is quite precedented. In so far as I am aware, it has not given rise to any difficulty. Its purpose is simply to provide against the
1614
possibility of undue difficulty in tracing or contacting the owner, occupier or tenant. Sometimes in the case of absentee owners, on death some of the owners may be untraceable. So while we think it will no doubt be a rare circumstance, it is one for which we must legislate.
I accept, however, that as it stands the provision appears to be rather a sweeping one, in that it does not in any way specify the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might use it. On consideration, therefore, we have put down Amendment No. 28, which will mean that the Secretary of State must first satisfy himself that it is not reasonably practicable to give notice in the normal way. I hope with this rather strict limitation of power conveyed in my Amendment No. 28 the noble Baroness will find it possible to withdraw her Amendment. I could point out that in any event the Amendment is defective, because it leaves the last three words of line 45 hanging in the air. So even from the grammatical point of view my Amendment is to be preferred. This is the sort of thing which can so easily happen accidentally; one does not notice another three words which have no meaning when they are left on their own.
To be serious, I think the noble Baroness has raised a point of substance. With regard to the powers which we are taking, although we would apply them in a particular way it is not obvious from the wording of the clause that we would apply them only in that way; therefore we have no hesitation in imposing this limitation on the circumstances in which notice to certain people may be dispensed with.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think the solution which the noble Lord has proposed is satisfactory, because he has made it clear that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it is not practicable in the ordinary way to send notices to people concerned before he authorises these other methods. But when the noble Lord said that this was a common phrase appearing in all legislation, I was a little anxious, because I know that in some cases fixing notices to telegraph poles is the only method of informing people what has to be done. I remember an occasion a few years ago when a new road was to be driven

1615
through three or four farms, and when it was announced the farmers were all extremely annoyed because they had never been told about it. They wrote to the Department and received the reply, "Oh, but on October 25 we stuck quite a big notice on a telegraph pole, with a pin". It had been pouring with rain and the notice had been washed away. In any case, no farmer had bothered to look at it. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said will satisfy my noble friend that he has met her point, and in that case I think she will probably be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, so long as it is realised that this idea of a conspicuous object is one that simply does not work and that we must have something else, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 2, after ("aforesaid") insert ("if in his opinion it is not reasonably practicable to do so").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 26):
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
7.4 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate that I should move the Motion that this Bill do now pass without expressing a word of
1616
thanks for the way in which the House has dealt with what I am certain will prove to be a very useful measure for Scotland. We had a Committee stage of exceptional difficulty, and I have already expressed my gratitude to noble Lords for the co-operation which they showed to me in most difficult circumstances which meant that we had only part of the Committee stage. The Report stage which we have had to-day has really been, in effect, a substitute for the Committee stage which we were unable to complete because of circumstances which had nothing at all to do with the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. Therefore I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation of the way in which the House has received this piece of legislation.
At the same time I should like to say that the Government regard this Bill as a major step forward in the provision and the development of recreational facilities in Scotland, both for Scotsmen and for visitors, and the conservation of its great natural beauty. There is perhaps one thought that we should keep in mind. Though we have had much talk to-day and in Committee of access agreements, orders, wardens and by-laws, I hope it will not obscure the general picture. The Government very much hope that Scotland will continue to retain the character it has traditionally had of great freedom to roam the hills and countryside and a general lack of unnecessary supervision and control. Therefore I hope noble Lords who can show a good example in this matter will feel that there should be a widespread and automatic movement towards access agreements, although it is hoped that wherever possible access will continue unhindered and that agreements will be resorted to only in special circumstances. If this Bill is operated by the local authorities and by the Countryside Commission in the same spirit in which your Lordships have endeavoured to send it back to another place, in even better form than we received it, then I am certain that we have done a good job of work for Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, since the noble Lord has been kind

1617
enough to compliment your Lordships on their co-operation in this Bill, I think we should reciprocate by complimenting the noble Lord on the manner in which he has conducted it through all its stages in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will understand that anything nice I say about him does not extend to the Government's arrangement of business, which I think has been absolutely disgraceful, but that is a handicap which has been suffered just as much by the noble Lord as by us. In spite of the great difficulties imposed on him by the limitations and restrictions and shortage of time under which we have had to work, the noble Lord has done his best to improve the Bill and to meet us in a full spirit of co-operation throughout all stages of the Bill.
For our part we are as anxious as he is that this Bill should have the effect of expanding tourism, which is of such importance to the Highlands, and also of increasing the pleasure and enjoyment of the countryside by our townspeople and others. I think the noble Lord will agree that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, who has taken such a prominent part in all stages of this Bill, and who indeed played a great part in preparing it beforehand, is a good example of those owners of land in his part of the country who have done their best to make this Bill a good thing for the future of Scotland. I would make the same claim for the Farmers' Union, the local authorities, the landowners, and all whose co-operation is necessary. I should like to thank the noble Lord for having, singlehanded, so considerately and skilfully piloted the Bill through the House.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, as the person responsible for probably more Amendments put down to this Bill than anyone else, I should like to endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Dundee has said about the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has handled the Bill and how he has done his best to mitigate the conditions under which we have suffered owing to the appalling arrangement of the Government's business. I hope the Government will not take it as a precedent that we do not want a Committee stage for the next Scottish Bill that comes before us. We do, and we have suffered from a severe
1618
handicap in not having one on this particular Bill.
I am sure that we could have improved the last half of the Bill still further had we had an opportunity to do so. The only thing that disappoints me about this Bill is the fact that my Amendment to Clause 9 was not accepted. I think this is of vital importance, and if we had had more time, or if the Bill had applied to England, I would have had every intention of dividing the House. If an English Bill appears without some such provision as I tried to add to Clause 9, although I have little to do with England, I shall do my best to try to improve it in that way.
I would say one final word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which no one else has mentioned. When this Bill came to us it cost the general public 6s. After our Committee stage, even though we had added one clause, it cost only 5s. 6d. Perhaps now, when we get the final version, the noble Lord will have got it down to 5s., and I am sure that everyone in the country, particularly the Prices and Incomes Board, will congratulate him in doing his bit to reduce the cost of living.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

VESSELS PROTECTION BILL
7.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. In doing so, I need hardly remind your Lordships that it has already passed through all its stages in another place. This Bill has been introduced to fill a gap in our law, concerning the taking and sailing away of vessels without the consent of the owner or other lawful authority. The Bill, in fact, covers all vessels, including fishing craft, with or without power, yachts of all descriptions, including dinghies and boats. I would remind your Lordships that a similar gap in the law concerning motor vehicles was put right, I believe some 37 years ago, in the Road Traffic Act 1930, Section 28, and it has now been

1619
incorporated in the Road Traffic Act 1960.
Your Lordships may wonder why so long a time has elapsed before action has been taken with regard to yachts and boats. The fact is that boat owning, in one respect or another, has in recent years spread to a very large part of the population, and I would say that it is now a national sport, and consequently the opportunities for theft have greatly increased. I think I am correct in saying that last year some 30 or 40 major thefts of vessels occurred, and the numbers of thefts of dinghies are very large indeed. I am personally an interested party in this Bill, as my dinghy was stolen only a few days ago. It is true that such a theft is not a major problem in our criminal law. Nevertheless, I suggest that it is a fairly substantial one, and likely to grow, I think, when people realise that at the moment they can with impunity take away a vessel and not be charged with theft.
I also suggest that it is not generally known that taking away and removing vessels is not in itself an offence. It is an offence permanently to deprive the owner by stealing, but it is not an offence when it is merely a case of "joy-riding". The Bill will, of course, rectify this position. As I have already mentioned, it has been an offence since 1930 to take away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, and I would suggest it is time to correct this deficiency in the law concerning sailing and rowing boats, as they cannot be locked up in the same way as motor cars.
I understand that Her Majesty's Government are favourably disposed towards this Bill, and that it was, in fact, intended to include this in a forthcoming Theft Bill which I believe is now under consideration. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department indicated in another place that it might be some time before the Theft Bill could be introduced and said that the fact that the matter might be dealt with in the Theft Bill was no argument for not plugging the gap now.
Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are, I think, self-explanatory, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to the savings clause, Clause 4. This is to protect a person on occasions when he reasonably believes that he has lawful authority to take and
1620
use any vessel. For example, a fire might occur on board, and anyone would be acting reasonably, I think, in moving the boat from one place to another, or in the event of a storm, re-mooring it, perhaps in a safer position. I would point out that the interpretation of the word "vessel" in Clause 6 has the meaning assigned to it by Section 7(4)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and that is a comprehensive section which includes any ship, boat or any other description of vessel used in navigation.
I would conclude by saying that it is characteristic of a very large number of people who take and sail away vessels and boats that they are not skilled in their use, and therefore they are a very dangerous hazard to navigation. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as I feel sure it will be of great assistance to the police and the courts and will be of great benefit to those who go down to the sea in small craft and boats. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Teynham.)
7.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in his moving of this very short, simple and valuable little Bill. I do not want to go through it again; he has done it the justice required. I intended to give your Lordships only a couple of small examples of the sort of thing that can happen owing to the fact that there is no method of prosecuting anybody for taking or driving away a boat. On the inland waterways we suffer a good deal from this sort of thing, and there is, on paper, protection for us in that the British Waterways Board on those waterways it controls has certain by-laws under which they are entitled to prosecute for this offence. It means, however, that one has first of all to find out the name of the person who has done it; one has to do that oneself. One has to notify the solicitor to the Board, who asks the Board whether they wish to prosecute. The whole thing is a very long, slow, weak and drawn-out procedure, and very few people bother to try to put this machinery in motion. The result is that most, I suppose one could call them "removers of boats" since "stealing" is not the technical term in this case, get clean away with it.

1621
I have had two cases in the last twelve months on my particular bit of the waterways, where boats have been removed. In both cases, I am glad to say, we did manage to get the offender into court, but each time only by a side road. In one case four tough hooligans stole a boat and were arrested, probably illegally, by myself and the youngsters of my youth club, in the middle of the canal and handed over to the police. I suppose we might have been had up for something. But it turned out that in the course of stealing the boat they had also raided a second vessel and removed various property from it, and they were brought up in court and duly convicted of stealing that property, although they could not be had up for stealing the boat itself.
In the second case a drunken man seized a small boat from a child, "turfed" the child out of it on to the tow path and proceeded down the canal on the boat, and I had to go and seize it from him. Luckily a fight did not develop; it might have been very nasty. The only way we could have him up in court—and he was in fact duly convicted and fined—was because in the course of this struggle for the boat an oar was broken and he was had up for malicious damage and, as I say, duly convicted.
But this is not good enough. We must have some methods of protecting small boats, because not only is the matter of the boat being taken away a considerable nuisance itself for the owner, but once the boat is out of its owner's hands every conceivable sort of thing can happen. Hooligans can get hold of the boat and can smash it up. This frequently happens if a boat is left lying about after somebody has taken it away from its proper moorings. Furthermore, thieves can get hold of the boat and use it to raid other boats which otherwise are moored in places where normally thieves cannot get to them. They can also be used by thieves to get into warehouses on rivers and canals which are protected on the land side but have a wharf open on the water side. There must be some method of protecting the boat owners, particularly the owners of small boats, from the theft of boats of the dinghy size, the numbers of which must run into many thousands.
I know that there are major vessels which are stolen, but they present a comparatively
1622
simple problem. It is usually possible to catch the thief and, given an adequate Act, it is possible to prosecute him. But this protection of the small boat and of the waterside owner from thievish hands is important, and it is my belief that this Bill fills this gap in a most valuable way.
7.22 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to add but a few words in support of this Bill which, in my view, is badly needed. At the last sitting of the court of quarter sessions in my county there was a case of four young people who took a yacht from the harbour and, narrowly escaping collision with a cross-Channel steamer immediately outside the harbour, eventually got it over to Ireland from Wales. This is not the first case of this sort that we have had in my court. There is a great need for a Bill of this kind in order to make sure that people who do this sort of thing are duly punished. My only doubt about it is whether the punishment enacted is sufficient. But I do not want to move any Amendment and thus wreck the chances of the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will pass it into law.
7.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, other noble Lords have described the michief that this Bill is designed to cure so graphically that I should have thought the House would have welcomed it on all sides. Certainly I do and, like the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, I do not want to be responsible for so holding it up by trying to amend it that it does not become law this Session, I should, however, like to make two suggestions to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for him, if he would be so good, to pass on to the Home Office when in due course they are considering the draft of the Theft Bill. I think they are improvements which might be made in this Bill when it comes to be consolidated, as I have no doubt will be the case, and, if necessary, improved in the general provision that is proposed.
The first suggestion is in relation to Clause 4, which my noble friend Lord Teynham referred to as the saving clause. I should have thought that it was worth while considering making this an express defence under the Bill rather than saying that a person does not commit an offence. The difference is this. If you

1623
make it an express defence, under the Magistrates' Courts Act it is for the person who is accused to prove that he had a reasonable belief. If you leave it as it is under this Bill, I rather think that it may be for the prosecution to prove that the person accused did not have the reasonable beliefs, or either of them that are set out. Of course, it is virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove such a negative—at any rate, it is extremely difficult. I think it would be better to put the onus under Clause 4 on the defendant in the way that these savings usually are.
The second point relates to Clause 5. Your Lordships may remember that not long ago—I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had some hand in this, during the unfortunate illness of Lord Stonham—the House passed the Criminal Law Act 1967, which lays down a code whereby, first of all, any person and, secondly, a police constable may arrest people without warrant. Of course it applies only to arrestable offences, and in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said, this Bill does not make the offence referred to an arrestable offence. Perhaps it ought to. But the Criminal Law Act has a saving for all other specific rules of law and provisions in Acts which give police constables and anybody else the power to arrest without warrant.
Here is a new one, and what I think is a pity is that it does not stick even remotely to the formula which is provided in the Criminal Law Act. For instance, it says that a police constable may arrest somebody of whom he has reasonable suspicion of having committed the offence or of attempting to commit the offence. I am not quite certain whether that is in the process of committing it or not, but it does not, as the Criminal Law Act provides, allow him to arrest when the person is in the process of committing the offence. I should have thought this was a pity. There are other discrepancies between this power provided under this Bill and the general power in the Criminal Law Act.
The point is—and I should have thought it was something that ought to be taken up by the Home Office—that a police constable, let alone an ordinary member of the public, has dozens of
1624
different powers of arrest according to whatever may be the circumstances of the crime. It must be difficult enough in all conscience to remember which is an arrestable offence and what are your powers under the Criminal Law Act. But to add a discrepant power under this Bill which does not fit in with the formula which has been laid down must, I should have thought, make the policeman's job more difficult. Therefore, I hope—although not on this occasion, because I do not propose to put down any Amendment, but when this general matter comes to be reconsidered—that those two points will be taken into account by the Home Office and by the draftsman, because I believe they will in due course make an improvement.
7.27 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on introducing this important and useful Bill into this House, it having passed through the lower House some months ago. I hope that he will be lucky enough to get back his dinghy by the time we come to pass the Bill which he has introduced to-day.
I have made inquiries about the question of the new draft Theft Bill. I understand that the Second Reading of the present Bill was taken about March 3 of this year, when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said that it might be some time before the Theft Bill could be introduced. But I am authorised now to say that the Government hope to make early progress in implementing the Criminal Law Revision Committee's recommendations, including the proposals on the taking away of conveyances; and when the Theft Bill is enacted it will no doubt be convenient to have together in that Act all the statutory provisions creating the offence of removing conveyances and to repeal this Bill for England and Wales when the Theft Bill goes through.
It is quite true that since 1930 to take away a motor conveyance has been an offence, but it is not so in the case of vessels of the kind we are now discussing. So far as England and Wales is concerned, the Bill, of course, anticipates Clause 10 of this draft Theft Bill prepared by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and I think that the House, the Home

1625
Office and the Government will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his two valuable suggestions in relation to the preparation in its later stages of the Bill to which I have just referred and which is now in draft. With those remarks, my Lords, I can say, on behalf of the Home Office and the Government, that we welcome the Bill, and hope that it will go through on Thursday next.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GRADING OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
7.30 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision not to include grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail end, in view of the necessity of such grading for the shopper. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Question I wish to raise to-night is one that I have been trying to get on in this House for some considerable time. I am asking the Government to reconsider their decision not to make grading of fruit and vegetables essential at the retail end.
I should like first of all to say something about my noble friend Lady Phillips, who is to reply to this debate. I have no wish to embarrass the noble Lady, but I must say that on this matter I would have expected to find her up here with me, rather than on the Front Bench. In fact I am wondering if she is intended to be the Government's "secret weapon", because they know of the regard and the affection in which I hold her. However, having said that, as she is speaking from the Front Bench I am afraid that she will just have to "take it."
I should have thought that a debate such as this was completely unnecessary. It must be obvious to everyone how much the shopper stands to gain by the grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail end. I have never been able to understand why Government of either Party has such an objection to doing this. What I have for a long time been trying to find out, unsuccessfully, is where does the opposition come from. As long ago as 1950 in another place I embarked on this journey, and I still have not reached the end—
1626
unless the noble Baroness is able to help me to-night. Nothing will convince me that if the Government of the day wish to benefit the shopper by insisting on retail grading of fruit and vegetables. this could not be done—otherwise what is the point of being a Minister? But always, whenever this matter has been raised, in either House, with either Party as Government, the attitude of whichever Minister has had to reply has been the same.
It may be a case of stonewalling which has nothing to add to the argument. It may be an obvious lack of knowledge of what happens when people go shopping—and the noble Lady at least will not be able to stand up without knowledge of what happens when people go shopping. Or it may be an implication—and this I am afraid happens very often with male Ministers—"Here we have women complaining once again, and the matter is not so serious, so let us write it off with some empty compliments about how able they are and what good shoppers they are"—though obviously my noble friend would not be guilty of that. Perhaps I might say, in passing, that when we women cease to get this type of silly compliment we shall probably really have arrived. But it will be a long time before we reach that stage.
As matters stand at present, growers will label their produce, Government inspectors will inspect it, and taxpayers will pay for it; but shoppers will be unable to select by it. My noble friend Lord Walston, on February 10 of this year actually pointed out to the House (and I quote from column 1558 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that:
"the retail shopper—the housewife—shopping for fruit has the opportunity of seeing the fruit before she buys it and therefore to that extent is able to do her own grading, whereas the wholesaler buying the fruit has to buy it in crates, or whatever form it may be, and therefore has to rely on a suitable form of grading."
A week later, on February 16, we really only moved on to a reiteration of this; that since the housewife shopping for fresh fruit and vegetables can see what she is buying, and can make her own judgment of quality in relation to price, there is not the same need to introduce grading at the retail level; that in effect the housewife acts as her own grader and inspector.
I told my noble friend Lord Walston that I should be saying this about him to-night. I always looked upon the noble Lord as a progressive, and I look upon my noble friend Lady Phillips as a progressive; but we shoppers would have thought that anybody, even a Minister given the unenviable task of defending such a policy, would have known that, while housewives or anybody else can see produce in the shops or on the stalls, there is certainly no guarantee that the produce they get is what they have seen at the front or on the top of the pile. I need not repeat that to the noble Lady. In the Sunday Express on May 7 last I noted a headline which said, "Why the superior tomatoes were not for the customers". Underneath was a short letter, on which the name and address of the sender appeared, with these words:
"My wife saw some poor looking tomatoes on display inside a shop. Beside them, in a basket, were much better ones. On asking if she could have a pound from the basket the answer my wife received from an embarrassed assistant was 'Sorry, madam, no. They are for putting in the window.'"
My Lords, I do not believe that anybody would deny the justice of the case I am making—certainly no shopper would. What I find difficult to understand is the attitude of the present Government. I think the present Government, however much of a nuisance they may consider me, will agree that it is not for want of trying that I have not got anywhere. Private discussions have been no more fruitful than public ones. We all know that sometimes quite a lot can be accomplished by private discussions, but even, as I gather my noble friend must be aware, for she must have been told, when I did try to be helpful in appreciating the reasons why the Government felt that grading was not possible at present I got nowhere. I asked only whether we could be given a declaration of intent that grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail level would be introduced eventually. I simply wanted the Government to imply that this would become Government policy, so that discussions could begin in advance on methods and timing. And the answer, even to that was, "No." Obviously, the Government are not prepared to help the shopper in this way; no other deduction is possible.
I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply to-day we shall not be given a detailed analysis as to why the present statutory grades could not be applied to small quantities and single units. We all know in this House that reasons can always be found for saying, "No." What I raise to-day is the principle of retail grading and we should like to know from my noble friend, if she is to disappoint us, why the Government will not have it. Ways can be found to overcome difficulties, if the will is there.
Let us take as an example Marks and Spencer. I imagine that everybody, not least the Prime Minister, agrees that they offer a consistent standard of quality for their produce. When arguing this behind the scenes I have been told that this firm is offering a special service involving repeated checks on produce up to the point that it is actually handed to the shopper. and that this service costs money. Of course it does: that is obvious.
But then, behind the scenes, the argument goes on to confront me with something that I never said. And we all know that when one is confronted in an argument with something one has never even mentioned, the case of the person concerned is very weak; in other words, you do not attempt to answer a question you cannot answer: you answer something else. I was told that it was not true that all shoppers were prepared to pay the significantly higher prices that must be demanded when grading is carried to these lengths. But I never said that all shoppers were so prepared—I would not be so stupid. What I did say, and what I repeat now, is that people shopping at Marks and Spencer were willing to pay more for what they knew was good quality. I have no wish to be rude, but such an argument is fatuous. What about merchandise in the shops quite apart from food? Do we not have grades of quality by price? By and large, you get what you pay for, and if you can afford it, if you have the actual cash to spend, usually the better quality is the best buy, and indeed the cheapest one.
What it seems impossible to get over to Government spokesmen, is the simple fact that in some shops grades of fruit and vegetables are mixed, and that the customer often pays top price for what

1629
is not top quality, as is not the case at Marks and Spencer. Furthermore, we shoppers just do not accept the proposition of this Government that was given me in the Lords on February 16 last, that the best way to deal with this is to have an argument in the shop.
I should like to spell this out to the noble Baroness, because I want her to have a realistic job in replying to this. Marks and Spencer are successful in selling high-quality graded fruit and vegetables, and they are successful because produce is sold at its best and is given a limited shelf life. The housewife knows this, and she is willing to pay more for what she knows is good quality. I do not need to tell the noble Baroness or anybody else in this House that tomatoes have been graded for years, but growers have becomedisheartened at local wholesalers and retailers mixing their carefully graded fruit with others. This is why the housewife has selected the Dutch and the Guernsey tomatoes which are still in their boxes and have not been mixed. Marks and Spencer take the best end, but there is plenty of sale for the other in hotels or canteens, or schools or factories; and, of course, the careful selection of seed and the improved methods of husbandry or harvesting mean that less and less of the lower grade is produced.
We hear a lot about education of us shoppers, and I am all for that. I believe that if details were given of grades, shoppers would check. I believe that the logical place for inspection is the shop, and that if the retailer had to label his produce the shopper would soon get to know how good better grades were and those which she preferred.
The Government, of course, approve of Marks and Spencer. As I think we all know, they seconded four of their purchasing officers to Marks and Spencer for six weeks in a plan to improve State buying methods. I understand that the Government team included one official from the Ministry of Defence, one from the Stationery Office and two from the Ministry of Technology. I noted that the Treasury, in announcing the secondment, described Marks and Spencer as
"a firm which is known to have developed successful methods in co-operation with its suppliers to improve their efficiency".
1630
What I should like to ask is this: Why could such secondment not be extended to include the grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail end, which is obviously so successful financially at Marks and Spencer?
But, wanting to be really helpful, if it is not to be Marks and Spencer, then why not secondment to the Geest Brothers, who have been among the pioneers of quality control and prepacking of vegetables? Probably my noble friend knows that, as a result of this, something like 15 per cent. of that group's fruit and vegetable turnover is now in a prepacked form for customers like Marks and Spencer, David Greig or Sainsbury.
I do not know how many Members of your Lordships' House noted an article in the Observer on October 1 last, which brings us very close to this debate, which spoke of the tremendous flair of the Geest Brothers, stating that they had been successful largely because they had spotted that the fruit and vegetable industry was ripe for rationalisation. Indeed, the Observer went on to say they have done for fruit and vegetables what Tesco's Jack Cohen did for retailing. I am not treading on that dangerous ground, and I leave the retail trade to comment. But the point I wish to make is that the Geest Brothers saw that distribution and transport in their industry needed attention. Quite honestly, they thought it was in a mess. As they did not control this aspect they felt that they could not give the service that can be provided only with reliability. To them the answer was simple: they set up their own distribution and transport network.
On May 8 of this year the Commonwealth Secretariat published its latest review of the world fruit economy. In this it described the progress of the European Economic Community towards establishing a common market for fruit and vegetables, the common standards of quality and the progressive application of these standards to intra- and extra-Community trade. Are we going to stay outside whether we enter the Community or not, or—I would say to the noble Baroness and to the Government—is it just going to be all right for our wholesalers, and mean quite simply that our shoppers will not get the best unless they

1631
buy imported produce or shop at Marks and Spencer?
I do not know whether the noble Baroness saw the Consumer Affairs Bulletin of the International Co-operative Alliance for this month of October, which said that since March, 1967, legislation in Common Market countries has required the grading of certain fruits and vegetables not only by wholesalers but also in the shop and market place. Apples, pears, oranges, lemons, grapes, cauliflowers and tomatoes are affected: and the regulations will apply later to most market garden and orchard produce.
Only this month I spoke at a national conference on the growing of horticultural produce, held by the Joint Consultative Council of the Fresh Fruit, Vegetables and Flower Industries. I think a good time was had by all. Naturally, some of the people present did not agree with grading at all, and to them I was obviously a worse menace than the Minister himself. But there were some there who believed that something should be done for the shopper at the retail end and felt that the Minister had not gone far enough, although cost and inspection were visualised as problems.
I know there is a strong feeling among some vegetable growers that grading does not pay. By this they mean that on balance the extra money gained for graded produce does not usually compensate for the extra trouble and cost incurred. Why then are Marks and Spencer so successful in selling high-quality graded fruit and vegetables at prices that are not cheap? In essence, this is what this argument is about to-day, and the answer is: because the grading of the produce is carried through to the shopper, who is consistently offered value for money. This is of the utmost importance.
I agree that there is only one way for the grower to get a higher return, and that is if the shopper is prepared to pay high prices for good produce. I maintain that Marks and Spencer and their suppliers have shown that shoppers are prepared to do this, but only for consistently good produce marketed at its best. I maintain, also, that the Marks and Spencer prices for fruit and vegetables are remarkably stable, usually ignoring minor fluctuations
1632
caused by gluts or shortages, and I suggest to the Government that here is the start of price stability in a market where it has been claimed that this is impossible. For many of these points about growers I am indebted particularly to an article by Mr. E. B. Watson in The Grower of June 4, 1966.
I have finished, my Lords. At this conference which I have just mentioned I was given a very straightforward subject—what the housewife expects from the horticultural industry. I took it upon myself to say that shoppers—which is a term I prefer to "housewives"; it is not only the women who go shopping—expected the industry to see: first, that they had graded produce, obviously with graded prices; secondly, that they got value for whatever price they paid; thirdly, that the quality should be what it was supposed to be; and fourthly that they expected the horticultural industry to join with shoppers in bringing pressure to bear on any Government and any relevant Ministry that was not prepared to bring this about. We want value for money, and that is what the debate is about to-day.
7.50 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support very strongly the brilliant speech which has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for whom I have the very highest admiration and whose expertise in this subject is, I think, something which no one else has. I cannot say that I have spent anything approaching the number of years, not to say hours and days, which she has in the course of her life, fighting for shoppers, and especially for this particular subject, the grading of fruit and vegetables. Nevertheless, I can speak this evening as representing the shoppers, in so far as your Lordships know that I am still the Chairman of the Consumer Council, and it is in that capacity that I am taking part in this debate to-day.
In other debates on agricultural subjects I always speak as a grower, a producer, but this time that is not so. I am speaking to-day for the shopper, just as the noble Baroness who has just sat down has also been speaking for the shopper. She has produced facts and figures which I find fascinating to hear,

1633
and which I have had given to me in one form or another, but not so clearly put as she has put them herself to-night. I congratulate her most heartily on the case she has put, which seems to me almost unanswerable.
I also know from my association with the noble Baroness who is going to reply that she, too, is a tremendous expert on shopping. She has done a tremendous amount for shoppers, so I can see that she has an extremely difficult job to-night in replying to all of us who are standing up for the shoppers on a wicket on which she herself, I have a fancy, does not like to bat very much. Anyway, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, in all that she has said. As I say, I speak to-night for the shopper, the consumer. I am entirely in favour of the shopper having every opportunity to buy the best quality that she can; or, if she does not want to buy that quality, that she should be able to buy the next best quality. But she should know what quality she is buying, and, as the noble Baroness has said, she is prepared to pay for.
I have a vivid recollection of seeing, some years ago, a friend of mine who was a great producer of apples sending off to the market at Covent Garden marvellously packed and graded cases and cases of apples. These were all going to the wholesale market, and would be bought, of course, by retailers. But then, when I went to buy apples from a retailer all I saw were little piles of apples marked either "Cox's", "Newton Pippins" or "Red Mackintosh", and so on, but with absolutely no indication as to how they had come there, whether they were grade 1, 2 or 3, or what they were. I was charged what was no doubt just the ordinary price for apples, but I could not at any point have said what the grade of those apples was, although I knew perfectly well that when they came from the grower they were graded and put into boxes on which the grades were clearly marked.
There is another product which we all know can be graded, and of which we can choose to buy one or other quality, and that is the egg. Eggs are graded; you can buy quality eggs or non-quality eggs, and you know perfectly well what you are doing. There is no trouble at
1634
all about that. They go into the retail market graded, and you buy them in that same way. Why not apples or pears, or, as the noble Baroness has said, other soft fruits or vegetables? I know that they are perishable; I know that they have to be bought fairly rapidly: but there is a very quick turnover in perishable foodstuffs. The noble Baroness has quoted the sales of fresh fruit and vegetables by Marks and Spencer, and the fact that, to use the technical term, "shelf life" is a short one shows that this can be done by enterprise and by skilful organisation.
I had not realised, until the noble Baroness said so, that the so-called experts which the Government had sent to learn about grading and retail distribution did not include one single person from the Ministry of Agriculture. It seems to me that if they were going to send somebody from the Stationery Office or somebody from the Ministry of Technology, surely they should have sent somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture.
I have in my hand a perfectly delightful little pamphlet, brought out by the Government, called, The Statutory Grading of Horticultural Produce. It is beautifully done, and attractive to look at. Here I read in this pamphlet that sales exempt from grading requirements are:
"(1) sale by retail;
(2) sale for export".
Imagine our trying to get into the Common Market, my Lords, with a hotchpotch of exports of vegetables or fruit ungraded! Then:
"(3) sales for processing".
One might argue that it is not necessary, if you have processing fruit or vegetables, to grade them, although I have always been told by the people who can vegetables and fruit that they like to can the very best quality because it keeps better and provides a better sales point.
The same pamphlet goes on:
"(4) a direct sale by the producer to a person who undertakes to grade and label the produce before reselling".
That shows, anyway, that they are prepared to admit that the shopper should have the opportunity of a graded product from someone who has the enterprise

1635
to grade before reselling. The next sale exempt from grading requirements is:
"(5) direct sale by the producer where the buyer takes deliveries of produce at the actual shop or stall at which it is sold by retail".
Those are all the sales which are exempt from grading requirements. But those five exemptions (or four of them, anyway) are, I would have thought, very detrimental to the sale of good-class vegetables, to the encouragement of the grower of high-class vegetables, and also to the shopper, for whom, as I say, I am speaking tonight.
My Lords, I think shoppers are discriminating. I do not belong to the school of thought which thinks that people will just take anything these days. I think there is discrimination. I believe they are sensible, the many women, and men too, who buy for the home and the household. But it is very difficult, however skilled you are. In the case of certain produce which I think I should be skilled in buying because I know something about producing it, I should still find it very difficult to judge the quality. Where meat has been cut up, or fruit has been muddled up on a counter, I should still find it very difficult to judge what was in fact the first, second or third grades. So there is a great case here for taking the matter in hand and really doing something about it.
As the noble Baroness has said, this is not a Party matter. I believe she raised this matter in the days when we had a Conservative Minister of Agriculture, and he was just as unwilling to do anything as the present Minister of Agriculture, who belongs to the noble Baroness's Party and not to mine. So I am not speaking in any Party sense here at all; I am speaking for the housewife, for the consumer, and for an encouragement to the grower of better produce, which is what grading is.
I know something about, for instance, the suppliers to Marks and Spencer, of which the noble Baroness has spoken. I know of the people who supply them with tomatoes, and I know of the people who supply them with chickens. The standards they require for their produce is an inspiration to the people who actually produce for them. They will not have the slipshod, the bad quality. If we want to raise quality among growers—
1636
and I do, being a producer of much agricultural produce, although not of this particular kind—it is a good thing to encourage high-quality production, and this is the way to do it: and more strength to that remarkable firm for the many revolutions they have sponsored so peacefully and so successfully in the retail trade.
So I should like to say that from the point of view of the consumer and the Council over which I preside our argument is quite simple. We think that information about grading which is used by the retail trade when they buy from the wholesalers should also be available to the ordinary shopper. At the moment, a retailer can buy by grade and sell by mixing up produce from a number of grades. The housewife does not then get the benefit of the statutory grading system which the Government have gone to a lot of trouble to introduce. We think that grading information should be an extra and useful guide to consumers when they make their selection. Of course the final guide will be the consumer's own eye, but this does not mean that grading information will not give her an indication of relative merit.
I beg the noble Baroness who is to reply, whose knowledge of shopping is very great and whose representation of shoppers has in the past been extremely good, to listen to the pleas of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, of myself, speaking from these Benches on behalf of the consumer and the shopper, and of anyone else who is interested in this subject. I think this is a subject that the Government should do something about. I do not blame the present Government or any particular Government for not having done it before. I would just as willingly blame my own Government for this. But somebody must do it and it should be done now. I hope we shall impress the noble Baroness and the Front Bench—although it is sparsely attended because of the late hour. I hope that our words will spread throughout Government Departments and that we shall get some satisfactory reply on this matter.
8.1 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I start by admitting an interest. I am a small fruit grower myself. I entirely

1637
sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in this matter and I should very much like to see grading carried through to the retail level. I see the difficulties. They may have been exaggerated in the past; but clearly a very large number of inspectors would be needed to go round the retail shops to make sure that there was no "hanky-panky." Marks and Spencer, whom the noble Baroness mentioned, have always had a great reputation for buying the best and selling the best. It surprises me that their prices are higher than those of other retailers, because other big buyers—and there are increasing numbers of them—can obtain their food stocks at the same prices as do Marks and Spencer. I can only think that the reason why they are able to produce everything so consistently good—and possibly have to charge a little more for it—is that they are so careful in the matter of shelf-life. Shelf-life varies considerably in different commodities. For example, a cauliflower, which now has to be graded at the wholesale level, goes downhill very fast unless it is sold quickly; but this does not apply to the same extent to apples. I think that Marks and Spencer not only buy very well but judge their turnover very closely, so that they do not have very much left on their shelves; and what is left is "turned-over" the next day. This is merely a guess. I am speaking with no knowledge of Marks and Spencer other than that of a satisfied customer.
The one way of achieving the end which all who have spoken have in common is through some punitive measure which could be applied only by having a mass of inspectors. In this connection the breathalyser comes to mind. We should all like to see every motorist made absolutely sober. An impossibly large number of breathalysers would be needed to check that every motorist is absolutely sober all the time. But the penalties for "getting on the wrong side of a breathalyser" are such that I, for one, and a good many others are being much more careful than we used to be. But I do not think the terror element could very well be introduced into the retail trade as a deterrent to selling foodstuffs under the wrong name. It just would not work.
Another means to achieve our end lies in the education of those whom I have
1638
been taught this evening to call "the shoppers" rather than "the housewives" When I go into a shop I should like to hear someone saying, "What are Cox's Grade 'A' to-day? I want some Cox's." Then, "That price is a bit high for me; what about grade 'B'?" If we get shoppers into that frame of mind we shall achieve our object fairly easily. But nothing has been done so far about getting shoppers grade-minded. In any event, selling goods by false description is already an offence.
The scheme of grading has got off to a rather difficult start. The apple crop is light this year; it was down by something like 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. Moreover, there were two gales in the early part of the picking season which produced an enormous amount of windfalls. Windfalls may look perfectly all right; and, if they are picked up quickly, they may be just as good as the perfect apple, providing they are eaten quickly. But they will not stand storage. A certain number of these specious rather than sound apples have got on to the market graded; and if they are eaten quickly enough nobody is any the worse. But the market has been flooded with windfalls—although they are now more or less cleared—and that has made the task of the graders more difficult. When I speak of "graders" I speak in terms of the large co-operatives and not of the small producers, many of whom, like me, do not do their own grading.
The large producers were planning their sales campaign from now. Just at this moment the Government announce that they are permitting the import of—I have forgotten how many—tons of apples from abroad before Christmas. That is going to wreck the ordinary marketing of the home fruit—and we have plenty of fruit in this country to last us anyway until January. It was a most inopportune announcement by the Government. If it had been made earlier it would not have wrecked the selling planning arrangements as it now has.
I think a few prosecutions—providing they are well publicised—for selling under the wrong label (it is already a crime) would be very beneficial. But, apart from the prosecutions I have just mentioned, the only hope I see of getting these gradings maintained right down to the small trader is in educating the buyers

1639
to insist on grading and to see that they get the grade they demand. I sympathise entirely with the ideals of the noble Baroness and should very much like to see something achieved.
8.10 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, after listening to the two noble Baronesses who have spoken, I should like to assure them at once that I would far rather be speaking for the shopper than for Her Majesty's Government. But it is not for that reason that I sit on the Government Front Bench, and so I have on this occasion to speak for the Government and hope that the interests of the shopper and those of that august body are not completely at variance. As always, my Lords (and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, knows me well enough to know that I do not say this in any other than a sincere spirit) I have admired the skill and eloquence with which the noble Baroness presented her case. I should not dream of insulting her, or the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, or the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, by attempting to reply to their arguments in any other than a straightforward way. I am not sure whether, at the end of the day, I shall be described as lacking in knowledge, as a stone-waller or as a reactionary. Nevertheless, I will do my best.
My Lords, it would be nice and easy, and it would be a happy circumstance, if we could assure the noble Baronesses that we could give a declaration of intent, but I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Government do not share the view that there is a necessity for grading fruit and vegetables at retail level. They do not see any need to reconsider their decision that the statutory grading of fruit and vegetables should be confined to sale by wholesale. I think we may lose sight of the fact that statutory grading was introduced to enable our own producers to compete more effectively with imported supplies. To achieve this object, grading has to apply at the wholesale stage, that is to say, at the point where the retailer exercises a choice between homegrown and imported produce, as the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, has outlined.
The statutory grading scheme is designed for produce in bulk. That is its purpose, and it would be a totally unsuitable
1640
instrument to cover grading at the retail end. That is not to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, that another instrument could not be introduced; but this is a totally unsuitable instrument to cover grading at the retail end, because grading individual small quantities or single items would pose problems quite different from those associated with the grading of bulk consignments.
My Lords, any housewife who suspects that her retailer is displaying good quality produce at the front of the pile while serving poor quality from the back, should take her custom elsewhere. I am bound to say that, having discussed this question of grading with shoppers and retailers, some of the replies from the shoppers were a little different from those I had anticipated. Perhaps they did not entirely back up the case presented by the two noble Baronesses this evening. I found also that there is not a prevalence to mix grades, at any rate among the retailers with whom I have had the pleasure of dealing. Perhaps we are doing the retailers an injustice if we suggest that this practice is as prevalent as we have heard this evening.
The most cogent argument against grading at retail level in present circumstances lies, I think, in the inevitable effect on prices, and I am wondering whether my noble friend fully appreciates what this effect might be. If my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry is asking that the shopper should be able to demand a pound of Class 1 apples and be sure that she would get no apples below Class 1; or demand a pound of Class 2 apples and be sure that she would get no apples below that class, this would be a very expensive service.
We have heard adequate testimonials this evening to a certain firm, and I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sieff, was not present this evening, because I am sure that he would have enjoyed the free publicity material that was handed out. We know that this firm offers a splendid service. It involves repeated checks on produce up to the point when it is actually handed to the shopper. These repeated checks are necessary, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, because fruit and vegetables are natural products and their condition may change in a matter of days or even hours. In

1641
effect, the retailer I have in mind (and we all know who that retailer is) offers a Class 1 guarantee, and I accept that there are many shoppers willing to pay the premium in order to get this service and this guarantee.
But I should like to ask both noble Baronesses who have spoken this evening whether they can honestly say that the majority of shoppers would be willing to pay the same premium to get a Class 2 guarantee. Yet if it costs the retailer, say, an extra 2d. a pound to offer a Class 1 guarantee, it will actually cost the same to offer a Class 2 guarantee. For this reason, if for no other, Her Majesty's Government would need to be convinced that the benefit to be derived from grading at retail level would justify the cost in terms of the price, and of the manpower necessary to enforce the grades. Though our admiration for Marks and Spencer is untinged, we must recognise that in this market that firm does not carry a vast percentage of the trade.
The noble Baroness mentioned the announced intention of the E.E.C. countries to introduce grading at the retail level. Perhaps this is one ray of hope that I can give her. Her Majesty's Government are keeping a close watch on these developments, remembering that it is only now being introduced. We are particularly concerned to see how the grades are applied and enforced and also their effect on prices. In the meantime, my Lords, I think it would be unfair to assume that grading at wholesale level will not bring some benefit to the shopper. There will be an improvement in quality and presentation of home-grown produce, and it will reach the shops in a fresher condition because national standard grades will speed up and streamline distribution.
I was happy to see in my own greengrocery store to-day a box of graded apples placed in a basket and presented to the shopper in one grade group only. I am bound to say that when I asked some shoppers whether they would buy something marked Class 2, they seemed a little doubtful, and I think that these are some of the things which we have to consider in relation to the education of the shopper.
My Lords, I can only say that Her Majesty's Government are concerned with
1642
the principle of consumer protection, and that needs no underlining from me. But priorities have to be determined, and for this and for the reasons I have given, Her Majesty's Government do not accord to the introduction of statutory grading at retail level the same degree of priority as do the noble Baronesses and the noble Earl who have taken part in this discussion. Our most urgent task must be to ensure the success of grading at the wholesale stage. I would say that my own experience has shown that shoppers are discriminating. What I have pleaded for over the years has been education, but we should be doing the British housewife less than justice if we said that she was not a good shopper. What we all seek is to make it possible for her to get true value for money. I can only say to the noble Baroness that I should be the last to suggest that she accepts all this as final. I know that she will not, and I hope that she will continue to bring to Her Majesty's Government an earnest plea for the shopper.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1967
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1967