Lords Sitting of 17 February 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  NEWFOUNDLAND (LIBERATION) BILL [H.L.]
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, in the debate last week on the status of Newfoundland, I gave notice at the time that I proposed to submit a Bill touching that matter. Therefore, I ask leave now to present this Bill entitled "Newfoundland (Liberation) Bill," a Bill to restore self-government to Newfoundland. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a First Reading, which I now beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Sempill.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  SPECIAL ROADS BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the main object of this Bill, which I think is a fairly non-controversial Bill, is to secure the recognition of motorways or single-purpose roads as a part of our highway system. But motorways are not the only type of single-purpose road, and the Bill also provides for the construction of other routes confined to one class of traffic, such as cycle-ways reserved for cyclists, or footways reserved for pedestrians. The motorway, however, is obviously the most important type of single-purpose highway from the standpoint of our national system of transport and communications. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks this afternoon mainly to the subject of motorways. I think that that would be the wish of your Lordships. Since the introduction of this Bill in another place, the advantages of the motorway over the all-purpose road have been widely canvassed. I do not propose to examine the details of the various savings in time and transport costs resulting from a motorway system, as it would be difficult, if not
  938
  impossible, to make a precise estimate in terms of time or money.
  But, however reluctant and indisposed one may be to pin conclusions down to the nearest pound or hour, or miles per hour, or journeys per day saved by a motorways system, few would disagree that in broader terms the case for the motorway has been established. To do this fairly, one should not compare the motorway with a typical existing all-purpose road. I think that would be an unfair comparison, for no one seriously visualises a motorway being created out of an existing road, though of course it may incorporate short lengths here and there. The proper and fair comparison is between the motorway, on the one hand, and either the new all-purpose road (which, of course, is likely to be confined, as a rule, to by-pass roads or ring roads) or the all-purpose road that has been as radically improved as practicable, on the other hand. Those are the two types of road which I think it is fair to compare with the motorway when we are trying to estimate the advantage of a motorway over other forms of road.
  EARL HOWE: If I may be forgiven for interrupting, I should like to make the position quite clear. As I understood him, the noble Earl mentioned the "new all-purpose motor road." Would I be in order in suggesting that the noble Earl probably meant "new single-purpose motor road" as compared with the all-purpose road which we have now?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged. I certainly intended to say "single-purpose motor road." I may have slipped up on that word. The question of building a new motorway—that is to say, a single-purpose motor road—arises only when the present road is so inadequate that it must be replaced by an entirely new road, or drastically improved by a mixture of new construction and widening. The first alternative will normally arise only when we are dealing with a relatively short mileage—that is to say, by-pass roads, ring roads, internal relief roads and the like. For the long mileages of the cross-country routes, the old road will normally be replaced only in parts by new construction, and elsewhere by widening and reconstruction of the present alignment.
  In the first case, we can make a direct comparison between the motorway and

  939
  the all-purpose road, since both will be entirely new construction, and we find that even on the initial score of cost of construction the motorway has the advantage. It is cheaper, for it will not have to cater for cycle-paths or footways, and the overall width can be reduced from some 120 feet for the all-purpose road to about 93 feet for the motorway. This reduction in width means something of the order of a 15 per cent. saving in expenditure on materials and labour that go to the making of a road. Equally important, it represents something like a 10 per cent. saving in land, and the cost of purchasing land is therefore considerably reduced. Similar comparisons between the new cross-country motorway and the reconstructed all-purpose cross-country road are much harder to make. The cost of reconstructing the all-purpose road, and the amount of land required, will vary greatly from one section to another, according to the amount of new construction undertaken. However, we can certainly assume that if these motorways are not built, the cross-country routes of exceptional importance which we have in mind will require a very extensive mileage of new construction in the form of diversions and by-passes to make them anything like adequate, as well as expensive works of widening and other improvement to bring them up to a reasonable standard.
  A detailed investigation has been carried out on what is considered to be a typical case—the road between Bristol and Gloucester. I should like to give this example because I think it brings the point vividly before one's mind. In this case of the road between Bristol and Gloucester, it was found that to bring the existing road somewhere near modern standards, thirteen miles out of twenty-three would have to be rebuilt on a new alignment, and the other ten miles widened or otherwise improved. The cost of building a brand new motorway to replace this twenty-three miles—that is, the whole length of the road between Bristol and Gloucester—worked out at only about 1 per cent. more than the cost of improving the old road. We can, therefore, reasonably assume that the motorway by-pass will be a more economical proposition than the all-purpose by-pass, and that the cross-country motorway will be either no more,
  940
  or very little more, expensive than the improvement of an existing cross-country route.
  In addition to its many advantages over the improved old road, the motorway has one outstanding advantage over any all-purpose road, even the entirely new all-purpose by-pass, laid out to modern design, with strictly controlled frontage access and the total elimination of road intersections on the level. That advantage is the segregation of traffic, which is the essence of the motorway. The presence of the horse and cart, the pedestrian and the cyclist on a fast modern road carrying a heavy load of motor traffic, can mean only increased danger to everyone and a higher tendency to traffic congestion. The motorway, therefore, not only has the advantages of economy, to a greater or less degree, in cost and land use, and the further advantages that any new road can have of a scientific alignment, modern treatment of junctions, and restriction on private access, but it has also the unique and outstanding advantage of assisting the segregation of the through traffic from local traffic, and of slow from fast traffic.
  There is a further point which I think is of considerable importance: the motor-way will be a new road "by-passing," so to speak, an existing road. It will naturally attract to itself the fast, heavy, through traffic. It will therefore not only be in itself a much more efficient and safe means of through communication than the old road would ever be, but it will also render the old road much less congested, safer and pleasanter as a route for the traffic that has to continue to use it after the new road has been built. I think it may fairly be said, without any element of exaggeration, that as a result of the construction of motorways our system of road communications will become both more efficient and far safer for road users. I have listened in years past (and the time that I recollect goes back quite a distance before the war) to many debates in your Lordships' House on the subject of road safety, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has always been a strong advocate of road safety. I am sure that he and other noble Lords who are interested in this subject will welcome this Bill, because it will go a long way to reducing the toll of the roads.

  941
  There is every reason to expect—and experience of motorways in Germany and of parkways in America bears out this expectation—that the motorway will offer nothing but gain if we start from the assumption that it will be built only where the alternative is a new or drastically reconstructed all-purpose road. Our highway system is, in its present state, not so inadequate that we need to duplicate every main road in the country with motorways; that would be an absurd and extravagant cost. But where the most vital of the main national roads are concerned, we are confident that as time passes the motorway will become the one really efficient, safe and economical answer to the problems of road transport.
  I am sure that many of your Lordships will ask yourselves: what bearing motorways of this kind will have on agriculture. There are many noble Lords who have always taken a keen interest in agriculture, and they will no doubt envisage the building of motorways from the point of view of the effect on the farmer. So far as one can judge the attitude of the farming community in general from that of such responsible and representative bodies as the National Farmers' Union and of various spokesmen in another place, it appears on the whole to be favourable to the Bill. The effects of the motorways on agriculture fall to be considered under three main heads: first, the use of agricultural land for the construction of these new roads; secondly, the possibility of inconvenience to farming operations through severance of land—also the result of road construction; and, thirdly, the advantages to agriculture of a more efficient transport system. Summarised, those are the effects of this Bill, both harmful and beneficial, on agriculture.
  I think it can fairly be said (and I hope this view will not be unjustified by the course of this debate) that the attitude of the farming community is that any disadvantages that may be feared under the first two heads—that is to say, under the head of the taking over of land for road construction and of the effect of severence on the utility and efficiency of farms—will be outweighed or set off by the advantages to be derived under the third head. It has been stated, during the discussions on this Bill in another place, I believe, that the efficiency of agriculture, as of all other industries, is entirely dependent upon an
  942
  adequate system of transport. Your Lordships are well aware of the importance of transport charges as an element in farmers' costs, and I sincerely hope and believe that the improved system of transport will outweigh the disadvantages to the farming community. As regards these possible disadvantages, I have already suggested that the motorway has some advantages of economy in land use, because it is not so wide as the all-purpose road; and that is, of course, another benefit to the farmer.
  On the question of severance, it is of course true that motorways cannot be built without considerable disturbance of agricultural land, but that is inevitable whenever a new road is built, whether it be a motorway or any other form of road. Whether we build motorways or not, we shall as time passes certainly have to build new roads to make good the results of the ordinary process of wear and tear. It is the sincere wish of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport that any disturbance caused to agricultural land should be reduced to a minimum, and when it does arise adequate alternative facilities will be provided. I will say something more on the subject of compensation and severance if the matter is raised (as I anticipate that it will be) by noble Lords in the course of the discussion, when I rise to wind up the debate.
  Let me now tell noble Lords, quite briefly, what we are thinking of in broad outline in relation to this motorway system. We are thinking in terms of a motorway system of some 800 miles—that, of course, takes in many country roads—plus a number of by-pass or radial routes in urban areas. This will inevitably be an expensive programme, and to it we must add the very considerable expenditure that must be incurred to modernise the rest of the highway system. It must be plain to everyone that at the moment we cannot afford to divert the labour and materials necessary for anything so ambitious. In case there is any possibility of misunderstanding, I want to emphasise that this Bill is not being presented now with any such idea in mind. We have no intention of starting these ambitious road projects in the immediate future, or of giving any encouragement to highway

  943
  authorities to act in that way. Motorways must take their turn, and even within the highway programme itself we do not propose that arrears of improvement to existing roads should suffer a reduced priority in favour of extensive new construction of motorways. We must be able to keep a reasonable standard of maintenance in all our existing roads.
  The reason for asking Parliament to approve this Bill at the present time is to enable highway and planning authorities, if they so wish, to plan for motorways. Many miles of new road are now being planned as part of the development plans in preparation under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act, and much of this mileage should eventually be constructed as motorway. If the motorway principle of segregated traffic is accepted by Parliament, and receives statutory recognition by this Bill's becoming law, then these new roads can be designed and located as motorways from the start, as they should be, and not as all-purpose roads. Both the public and the highway authorities will know where they stand, and preparatory work on the more urgent projects can go ahead in certainty, without that element of doubt which would be present if Parliament had not sanctioned the construction of motorways. This, of course, will reduce delay in starting the actual constructional work as soon as the national resources allow it to be undertaken.
  I should like now to draw attention to some of the salient features of the Bill. The construction of a motorway, obviously, requires a power to segregate motor traffic from other forms of traffic using the roads, but this power is not provided for by existing legislation. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, therefore, enable highway authorities to provide special roads for special classes of traffic; and these classes represent the most important change that the Bill proposes. A highway dedicated for public use as a carriageway—that it to say what is ordinarily called a road, as opposed to a footpath or a bridleway—cannot normally be restricted to a particular class or classes of users. That is the position under existing law. There are certain powers by which traffic of a certain specified class can be prohibited from using a given road for some particular reason; but in general anyone with any
  944
  form of vehicle may use a road. The highway law of this country, broadly speaking, recognises restriction of the use of highways only if they are dedicated for public use as footpaths or bridleways. The highway dedicated as a carriageway—that is to say, as a road—is free for all—for the pedestrian, for animals, for carts, for cars, for lorries, for motor cycles, and so on.
  This basic principle of existing law the Bill proposes to modify, so that highway authorities will henceforth be able to say that the highway they are to provide can be used only by a certain type of traffic, to the exclusion of other types. This power to control user will distinguish the motorway or other special roads provided under this Bill from ordinary highways. Access control and the lay-out of junctions, which are equally important from the point of view of these new roads, can be dealt with even if this Bill does not become law, because they are provided for under existing Statutes; but without the power to restrict user of the road it would be impossible to dedicate the road as a motorway. That fact throws one important point into relief. The special road of this Bill will be a special road primarily because of this control. In all other respects it will be a highway like any other highway, and highway law will apply in the normal way, subject to relatively few modifications made in the Bill. Accordingly, the Bill provides primarily for this control over user. Only in the second place does it provide for other matters considered necessary for special roads, such as the powers of Clause 3 to alter side roads, or the powers of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 regarding mains and sewers, and so on.
  Then there are matters of procedure in relation to the machinery of the Bill. These procedural matters are set out in the Schedules and in the remaining clauses of the Bill. What we have in mind is that the Bill should operate in two distinct stages, which may be termed respectively the scheme stage and the order stage. Under Clause 1, a highway authority—which includes, of course, the Ministry of Transport—may be authorised by a scheme made or confirmed, as the case may be, by the Minister (it would be confirmed in the case of a highway authority, who would draw up the scheme subject to the approval

  945
  of the Minister) to provide a special road. The scheme will prescribe the route of the special road, and the class or classes of traffic which will be allowed to use it. There will be two stages in the scheme. The first will be in the planning of the motorway, and then, when a scheme has come into effect, it becomes possible under Clause 3 for orders to be made authorising various matters consequential to the provision of the special road. These will include the alteration or stopping-up of other highways which enter or cross the route of the special road, the elimination of intersections on the level, the construction of junctions with the motorway, and the provision of alternative facilities as may be required for local and other traffic now using the existing roads. It is provided in particular that no existing highway may be stopped up unless the Minister is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available, or will be provided before stopping-up takes place. That is the second stage which is necessary before the detailed plan of the motorway is completed by the highway authority.
  I am confident your Lordships will agree that it is right and proper that this country should have an up-to-date road system, equal to any which exists elsewhere in the world, as soon as the economic situation permits work on such a system to be started. I have no hesitation at all in commending this Bill to your Lordships, because I think it will be the desire of every member of the House that this scheme should go forward when the proper moment comes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  3.0 p.m.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, we have listened to a pure exposition from the noble Earl of what is in this Bill, and those of us who sit on these Benches do not in any way contest the proposition that His Majesty's Government should take powers to construct roads of the type which is adumbrated in the Bill. But we intend to look carefully at this Bill and we may wish, either now or at a later stage, to draw attention to certain defects which we think it contains. We would also like to
  946
  consider the Bill in relation to the transport policy of His Majesty's Government and I therefore invite the noble Earl, when he replies to this debate, to tell the House how these proposals fit in with the avowed aim of the Government to "unify, co-ordinate and integrate" all inland transport—I use the terms which have been used on those Benches in previous debates. The noble Earl has made it clear, and I should like to underline the proposition, that the Bill does nothing of itself; it is an enabling Bill. As I conceive it, it is not so much a Bill enabling the Government to construct roads, because they have powers to do so already under the Trunk Roads Act, as a Bill to exclude certain classes of traffic from certain roads. It is, therefore, literally a restrictive Bill, although I say that in no condemnatory sense.
  The other provisions of the Bill are necessitated by this exclusive purpose of the Bill. That does not mean that it is in any way diminished in importance. May I give an example? It would be a restrictive act to deny access to the Public Galleries of your Lordships' House to any member of a particular category of the public, but it would also be a matter of prime importance, especially if we excluded the Press. By ancient usage the King's highway has been open to all users. Our roads have served alike the traveller on a far journey and the people of the countryside going about their lawful and, I regret to say, sometimes unlawful purposes. A special road will undoubtedly look like any other trunk road. It will be, as some unkind person described it, a gash through the countryside. But although in appearance it is similar, in effect it is very different. A special road reserved for traffic in Class I of the Second Schedule of the Bill—namely, motor traffic moving at more than twenty miles an hour—will be constructed to serve long-distance traffic moving between two or more important centres. It will cease to be at the service of local communications.
  It seems to me that two main consequences flow from this. First, these special roads will improve (as indeed is designed) the conditions for long-distance road haulage, especially for heavier categories, including long-distance passenger coaches. Other things being equal, it must be and can be expected

  947
  that operating costs of running such long-distance road haulage will be diminished. In fact, there would be little purpose in building these roads unless there were a good chance of that object being achieved. Secondly, special roads will offer few benefits to the agricultural industry except, possibly, indirectly. I do not think the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading, seriously disputed that fact. On the other hand, the construction of special roads must inevitably rob agriculture once again of much valuable productive land, and certainly will cause disturbance to agriculturists. I conceive it to be the duty of the Opposition in this matter to direct the attention of His Majesty's Government to the need to state now the policy which informs this request for these enabling powers. It is our duty to see, so far as we can, that special roads are constructed in a manner causing the minimum disturbance and discouragement to agriculture.
  I hold that in the nature of things the construction of these special through roads for fast-moving commercial traffic must offer competition to railways. That competition is little affected by the question of ownership. It arises because many classes of goods can be carried either by rail or by road. The problem existed before the war, often in an acute form, and I maintain that, despite the Transport Act, it still exists. This problem is not solved by saying that road and rail traffic should be complementary. In some cases that is true, but in many cases it is not. I am glad to see that the Minister in another place has given an assurance that transport users will not be compelled by restrictive ordinances to use one form of traffic or another; they are still to have freedom of choice. Therefore, it seems to me that those in charge of our transport system cannot lay aside the task of influencing the users of rail or road by comparative rates. If road costs are reduced by the making of these special roads, we must consider what effect that will have on rail receipts. If road competition proves formidable, will fares have to be raised to meet the railway deficit? Or will the Transport Commission have so to adjust their rates that traffic has to be diverted back to rail? The Minister of Transport cannot evade responsibility by declaring that the question of rates is a matter for the
  948
  Transport Commission, for, by initiating the constructions of these special roads, the Minister must vitally affect the task of that Commission.
  By granting these enabling powers we are possibly forgoing the opportunity of discussing again this problem of the special roads as a whole. Having given the powers, we shall necessarily have to allow the Minister of Transport to avail himself of them. Therefore, we ought to hear to-day what are the considerations in the mind of the noble Lord and his colleague the Minister of Transport, and how the Minister relates his scheme for these roads to his declared object of integrating inland transport. After all, we are asked in effect to approve the expenditure of a great sum of money, not yet declared. The noble Earl was good enough to give us some idea of the mileage of these special roads—something over 800 miles—and we know that at present estimates the cost per mile is something like £150,000. We can see how large a sum is involved in this Bill. It is commonplace to say that our resources are strictly limited, and it follows, as I see it, that the more we spend on capital improvements to our road system, the less we are likely to be able to spend upon our railway system, in which the State has now invested a very large sum of public money.
  It may be that the Minister has given careful and exact thought to this problem. It may be that he has a scheme which will reconcile these competing interests and these competing claims upon the national resources. He may have a good idea how railway traffic will be affected, and he may know exactly how he is going to keep the railways solvent without making road users foot the bill. If the Minister does know all these things, I hope he has shared his knowledge with the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate, and that the noble Earl in turn will inform us. If this problem is not considered and we hear nothing of the grand policy of His Majesty's Government for inland transport, I hope the noble Earl will not blame us if we suspect that there is no grand plan and that the sacred words "unification, co-ordination and integration" are really incantations. My noble friend Lord Swinton, when he was speaking on the Transport Bill, said that he hoped the policy of the Minister of Transport

  949
  was not solvitur ambulando. There is a great opportunity in your Lordships' House to-day for the fears expressed on that occasion by my noble friend to be proved groundless.
  It must not be forgotten that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport told another place that, given five years of power, his Government would do more for transport than my Party could do in 500 years. That was a boast not very precisely expressed, and we must make allowances for the occasion. But this is a great opportunity to show that His Majesty's Government do expect, in something less than 500 years, to have a plan for transport. We should like to hear the recipe for success which obviously animated the Minister when he made this large and resounding boast.
  Having invited His Majesty's Government to use this admirable occasion for declaring a policy for which we are all waiting, I should now like to turn, as the noble Earl has already done, to the question of agriculture. As the noble Earl has so rightly said, a considerable amount of land must be taken if these roads are to be constructed. He has touched upon the awkward problem of severance. Many holdings will be divided, and their management gravely impaired. Therefore, from the light of agriculture, we must look extremely critically at this Bill, and, so far as in us lies, see that where the need for a special road is proved the burden on agriculture is lightened. So far as that industry is concerned, a special road resembles far more a railway than a road of the ordinary type. A special road is driven through the countryside and is not available for normal local traffic; in fact, the kind of traffic which is the main concern of farmers—namely, tractors, trailers, cattle, horses and so on—will be prohibited from using these roads. Therefore we must examine this Bill with those considerations in mind.
  We want it set down in the Bill that detailed plans of any special road scheme shall be made available in good time to all interested parties so that anyone adversely affected, or likely to be adversely affected, may be able to gauge the extent of the disturbance before the inquiry takes place and have ample time to make objections. We doubt whether this matter
  950
  is adequately safeguarded. Certainly we should like to see that agriculturists are, under this Bill, in at least as favourable a position as their predecessors were in the days when railways were being constructed through our countryside. We want to see that in the matter of accommodation they are not less well treated. By "accommodation" I mean, of course, proper crossings, either over or under the roads, such things as "creeps," drainage, conservation of drinking places and other matters. It ought to be a principle of the Bill that compensation for disturbance is paid only where it is not possible physically to make amends for disturbance. There are certainly doubts as to whether this point is adequately met in the Bill.
  We are also disturbed by the almost unlimited discretionary powers asked for by the Minister in regard to the acquisition of land for special roads. It is clear that if a special road is to meet its purpose, there must be land acquired for such things as "fly-overs" and for other ancillary matters. It is true that it is difficult to lay down in a Bill the width of land which the Minister may acquire, but we must look carefully at the relevant clause to see whether we can prevent the Minister from being entirely the judge in his own cause. These are matters which will concern the Committee. I thought it right to tell noble Lords opposite how our minds are working on this subject.
  Great demands have been made on the agricultural industry for a decade or more. I am sure everyone agrees that the response of the industry has been beyond all praise. The threat that further land may be wrested from agriculture for these purposes is bound to be discouraging. If the discouragement is not to be followed by cynicism about the good will of the Government towards the agricultural industry, it must be apparent within the Bill itself that the Minister of Transport will give due consideration to the requirements of agriculture, as is set down in the early clauses of the Bill. As we have often said before on this side of the House, ministerial assurances of good intentions are no substitute for proper legal safeguards. There is one other point which is a matter of detail, though not a minor point. We should like to know whether, as the Bill now stands, it envisages pedestrian crossings on the level of special roads. If there are to be

  951
  crossings, it seems to me they would in part interrupt the main object of the Bill, which is to have unimpeded flow of traffic. Perhaps the noble Earl will turn his attention to that point when he replies.
  As I said in my opening remarks, we have a duty on this side of the House and, indeed, the whole House has a duty, to give this enabling Bill the most careful scrutiny. The Minister charged with the task of providing public roads must, we agree, take powers adequate to achieve its purpose, but the Minister has voluntarily shouldered a much larger self-appointed task of unifying all inland transport. In granting him the powers which he seeks, we have a right to inquire from noble Lords opposite how the Minister relates this request to his claim that in nationalisation he has found the right solution of our transport problems. Moreover, we have a duty to see that justice is done to all those whose interests and livelihood are affected by these schemes. In this spirit, and with the provisos which I have stated, we shall examine and, I hope, pass this Bill.
  3.22 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to occupy more than a few minutes of your time in the observations which I desire to make upon this Bill. My noble friend Lord Listowel was kind enough to refer to the fact that I had taken part in a good number of debates dealing with safety on the road. That is true. I think in almost all of them the main burden of my observations were critical of the Government of the day—to whatever Party that Government happened to belong—but in this particular case I am glad to find myself in a position of being able to support the Government of the day. I think this Bill is a good Bill, so far as it goes, and I think it is very necessary that we should do something to improve the safety of the roads. It is from that point of view that I look upon the provisions of this Measure. My noble friend who has just spoken treated it, I thought, as a restrictive Bill. I understand what he means by that, and I do not disagree with him, but I would prefer to say that it is rather for the regulation of the roads than for the restriction of their use. That is the real aim of this Bill.
  Some reference was made to the somewhat similar problems which arose when
  952
  the railways came into the country and began to transform entirely the traffic of the country. The difficulties which arose then will no doubt arise in this case. I have said this before in your Lordships' House, but I venture earnestly to press upon all your Lordships again that the restriction in the regulation of the traffic on the railways has been made more extreme than anything contemplated in this Bill. The railways are now almost completely fenced off from the rest of the world, and nobody can go on the railways unless he is in the employ of the railway authority, or is a traveller or user of the railways. In the same way, even though the railways are kept strictly to one particular kind of use, there is a very limiting provision which insists that that shall be use consistent with the safety of the users. Therefore, I welcome the precedent of the railways, and I hope that Governments will recognise as they proceed that the modern invention has so altered the problems that have to be dealt with on the roads, that it is essential for traffic to be regulated in quite a new way. It is for that reason that I personally welcome this Bill.
  It gives definite approval to the proposition which some of us have often advanced—that it is quite unscientific to expect the ordinary roads to deal with traffic consisting of machines travelling at fifty or sixty miles an hour—or more—and at the same time deal with traffic which travels at the rate of two or three miles an hour. It is unreasonable to expect that the conditions which are suitable for one kind of traffic will be equally suitable for the other kind. There is, therefore, a very strong case for some kind of classification of traffic—my noble friend Lord Listowel called it segregation, though I would prefer a rather less offensive term—perhaps classification of traffic. Whichever way one looks at it, that is the principle, as the noble Earl candidly announced, which lies at the root of the most important part of this Bill, and it is that principle which I support.
  The Bill, as your Lordships know, provides for the creation of these special motor roads and gives facilities for their creation and their use, apparently by the fast traffic. I hope that that is what is meant. That is not actually stated in the Bill, but there is power to exclude all

  953
  traffic which is not of that character from these new roads. I welcome both those provisions, and I hope that they will necessarily lead to the exclusion of the fast traffic from the ordinary roads, because then we shall take a real step towards the safety of the roads. It is possible to limit the ordinary roads to traffic going at a moderate speed. I have always believed (though I know there are other members of the House who do not share that view) that that would make a great difference to safety in the use of these roads.
  This classification is not a new principle, even in regard to roads, because, of course, all footpaths are designed, at any rate, to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, leaving the main roads to deal with the vehicular traffic. I warmly hope that once the Government have launched these ideas they will press more strongly for a great increase in the number of footpaths. I think there ought to be a footpath along every reasonably frequented ordinary road. It is all very well to say that people do not use footpaths. Perhaps they do not use them so much as they should when the paths are first established, but my experience is that when people get used to the fact that there is a footpath, they begin to use it more and more. And if there were ample footpath facilities it would be reasonable to consider whether there should not be stringent regulation of the use by pedestrians of roads intended entirely for vehicular traffic.
  I must repeat what some of us have said—too often perhaps: that the present condition of slaughter and accidents on the road is a great scandal. A great deal has been made of the fact that it is not so great as it was; and the improvement is attributed to the persuasive character of the Highway Code. That Code may have something to do with it, but I think the restriction of petrol has more. But whatever may be the real reason, this broad fact remains true: that every year hundreds of people, largely children, are killed, and thousands of others are maimed. So long as that condition of affairs exists in this country, we have no right to boast that we have the best civilisation in the world. It is because I regard this Bill as a first step towards a practical remedy for this state of things—going a very little way, I
  954
  admit, but still a first step—that I venture to give it my support.
  3.32 p.m.
  LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I think there must be other noble Lords besides myself who find it a little difficult to feel an acute and immediate interest in this Bill. The noble Earl who has spoken has given us the reason. He said that it would be a very long while (I think those were his words) before anything could be done in this matter. In another place the Government went further, and mentioned a term of years—I think it was ten years. In ten years the interest I shall be taking in motor transport will be extremely small—and that, no doubt, applies to other noble Lords. Nevertheless, I am a great admirer of optimism; and I have yet to hear anybody accuse the present Government of any lack of that excellent quality. They are surely somewhat optimistic in this matter, because they are taking powers now for a date ten years hence (or it may be less) to install a system of roads which will cost, we are told, £150,000 a mile. I have heard a similar estimate before, but I think that was for dual-purpose roads. The noble Earl said there would be a saving of 15 per cent. on that £150,000 a mile, but the estimate of £150,000 was made a considerable time ago, and the cost has risen by at least 25 per cent. since the time the estimate was made—and it was made by most reputable people.
  Many things may happen in ten years. It may be that by that time a large proportion of our traffic will be carried by air. What I regard as being more likely is that by that time the world's supplies of petrol, which are not illimitable, may be sinking rather low; what is even more probable is that we in this country may not have sufficient money to buy all the petrol we want for these new roads. Noble Lords opposite laugh, but I suggest that it is a possibility.
  I take it that one of the reasons which prompted the introduction of this Bill is the desire to transfer from the railways to the roads a considerable amount of traffic. I wonder whether that is altogether wise. Many notable authorities have stated that if the fact is taken into account—as it must be taken into account—that the railways have to keep up their own tracks whereas the roads

  955
  are kept up by the general public, railway transport is distinctly more economical than road transport. Personally, I should be much happier to-day if, instead of taking powers for the making of these special roads at some future date, the Government would take some immediate steps to improve our rolling stock and our railway facilities. I think that that would be a better contribution at the present time than the steps which they now propose to take. Nevertheless I find it a little ironical (and I think other noble Lords besides myself may find it so, especially those who have the duty of maintaining county roads—which, after all, are the roads that farmers and the general public will use to a far greater extent than these special roads or the great main roads) that we should have our grants cut and our labour force curtailed, and be forced thereby to experience the greatest difficulty, not only in improving but in maintaining our roads. Roads are like buildings: you do not maintain them, the ultimate cost of restoring them is much greater than their regular maintenance would have been.
  I cannot express any great enthusiasm for this Bill as a whole. There is one clause—namely, Clause 10—which arouses my immediate interest, because it has immediate effect. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams, is, in my view, a very good Minister; one has to go a long way back before finding a better. If I had any criticism to make, it would be that he seems somewhat unsuccessful in fighting other Departments—if he does fight them. Mr. Tom Williams—and, indeed, other Ministers, when they can find time to spare from the more congenial task of general destruction—is frequently in the habit of addressing the farming population and telling them that the vital need is production of food. He has many times explained that the need is as great as it was during the war and calls for the same effort as the farmers made with such success in those days. He has set them a good target and they are straining to hit it. But, from time to time, they find themselves flabbergasted. Those of your Lordships who are in touch with branches of the National Farmers' Union (I personally am fortunate in having an extremely good branch) will know with
  956
  what extreme perturbation the farming community have noted the fact that good agricultural land is continually being filched from them. Some of your Lordships probably remember that before the war we lost every year over 60,000 acres of agricultural land—roughly 100 square miles every year—and as it is computed that one acre of arable land feeds two people each year, 120,000 fewer people can now be fed off our land.
  That, in itself, is a serious matter, but this filching of agricultural land has now greatly increased. It would seem that there is a sort of competition among the Ministries as to who can get the most. They are all at us. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning will, in all probability, win in the long run—at any rate, they are trying very hard. Then the Minister of Health has his "whack." The Fighting Services naturally—I must confess I have more sympathy there than I have in some of the other cases—take their share. The Ministry of Education like their bit. Perhaps some of your Lordships are unaware of the fact that when a school for 100 infants is to be built, the minimum requirement of the Ministry of Education is four acres—and it must be the best land in the neighbourhood!
  The Ministry of Transport have had a good "whack" in the past, but apparently they are not satisfied, for, under Clause 10 of this Bill, they take power not only to acquire all the land in the fairly generous limits of 220 yards from each side of the centre of the road—that is a quarter of a mile from side to side—but as far beyond it as ever they wish and upon any sort of ground they like, without consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture or anybody else. According to this Bill, as I understand it—it is fairly plain English—they can take land where-ever they like. For instance, they can make a by-pass and make provision for the parking of cars. Then, with their 300 yards of road, they can say: "This is a good position for a rest house. Let us have a rest house here." But, not resting there, they can say: "Let us see if someone wants to put up a cinema." Next they may add: "After all, people will not want to be indoors all the time, so let them have a football ground adjoining." They can do all that under the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me what in fact

  957
  it means. Maybe in due course he will explain what are the powers.
  In his most lucid explanation of this Bill, the noble Earl expressed—I know quite generally—his interest in agriculture. When I ask him whether he believes that it is of vital importance to the nation that we should produce every iota of food that we can, I have no doubt his answer will be emphatically "Yes." Therefore, with every confidence, I ask that he will in due course permit such amendment to this Bill as will not only have the effect of removing the fears I have expressed, but will show the farming community that the Government really mean business in getting the utmost out of the land. I ask him to disperse the fears which are only natural to common-sense people when at one moment they are asked to produce all that they can and at the next moment as much as possible of the best agricultural land is taken from them.
  3.44 p.m.
  LORD ELTON: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and most persons who have interested themselves in the ghastly problem of road accidents, I have always regarded the building of segregated motor highways—with due respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I am not afraid of the word "segregation"—as eminently desirable. And if I support the Bill only with a number of cautionary reservations, I hope that the noble Earl will not think that I am looking a gift horse in the mouth, if indeed that is a metaphor appropriate to this particular context. When considering the case for an enabling measure—and every speaker this afternoon has reminded us that this is merely an enabling measure—we are a little apt to allow our imaginations to run away with us, and to picture the process for which powers are taken as a completed achievement; and then to go on to consider the effects of that imaginary achievement upon some vaguely generalised conception, such as British agriculture, or the future of British commerce or the British countryside. It is sometimes helpful, first to remind oneself that this measure represents what in fact it obviously does represent—the prospect of a highly tentative and piecemeal process—and then to go on to try to forecast the effects of that process upon some
  958
  particular clear-cut community of which one has first-hand knowledge. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to try for a few moments to foresee what appear to me to be some of the probable effects of this measure upon the little community in which I happen to live.
  This is a small and lovely North Oxfordshire village of stone and thatch, strung out over about a mile of secondary road, across the extreme eastern end of which cuts the main Birmingham—Oxford—London highroad, carrying—and carrying round at least one blind corner—a steady stream of light and heavy traffic, 75 per cent. of it paying no regard whatever to the speed limit. Naturally, the first need of the residents in a village of that kind, and of the residents in so many other villages of the same kind all over the country, is a by-pass. In this particular instance, the plans for a by-pass were completed and approved before the outbreak of the late war. Naturally enough, they have since been shelved; and that although a few miles away in the same county gardens and farms are being cut up and walls and even houses are being pulled down, in order to broaden and straighten a stretch of highroad to enable motor traffic between Oxford and Stratford-on-Avon to save some three or four minutes in transit—though what those who save them do with them I have no idea! Unfortunately most highway authorities seem to regard speed of travel as infinitely more important than the safety and comfort of resident communities, and the by-pass has been relegated to the Greek kalends.
  What is likely to be the effect of this Bill upon that situation, which I am sure reproduces itself endlessly all over the country? Well, it may be said—I am not sure that the noble Earl did not in effect say it—that in due course the construction of some such segregated motorway in our neighbourhood will relieve the road through the eastern extremity of our village of a large proportion of the traffic which now passes along it, night and day. I do not want to be a pessimist, certainly no more pessimistic than the noble Lord who has just spoken; but I cannot help feeling doubtful whether a road of this new kind is likely to be built in our neighbourhood

  959
  within the lifetime of anybody taking part in this debate—and I say that, despite the fact that the average age of noble Lords who speak on road topics is considerably less than that of those who take part in other debates.
  After all, we have to remember that we are still "in the red," I think I am right in saying, by at least £280,000,000 in the national income; that we are still living on charity. The British Road Federation has told us that it is going to cost at least £150,000 a mile (and Lord Cranworth suggested 15 per cent. more than that) and we are dealing with 800 miles. My arithmetic is somewhat shaky and I speak subject to correction, but I think that means a total figure of something like £120,000,000. Are we entitled to think even of beginning to spend that sort of sum while we are still in effect almoners of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic? The Government, quite recently, and very rightly, have made a cut in road expenditure of, I think, £21,000,000. Is it likely, in view of all these considerations, that we shall, in fact, see a road of this kind (if I may continue to think in terms of my own neighbourhood) within the lifetime of anyone now living in the village?
  And there is this further consideration. If the Minister takes these powers he will be under immediate pressure to use them. Your Lordships may have noticed that during the Second Reading in another place numerous Members seized this, the earliest, opportunity, to recommend warmly to the Minister a bridge for the Severn, a bridge for the Forth, a bridge for the Tay and numerous other projects. What I am afraid of is that local authorities may find themselves tempted to say, "With all this talk of new great improvements in the air, surely we should be recklessly ill-advised to spend much on improving the state of the existing roads."
  Again, my Lords—and this is a very important matter indeed, and one to which I think every speaker has paid some attention—the Minister has virtually no compulsory powers whatever to ensure that those for whom we are to construct these roads, at enormous expense, will use them. This is, in fact, in a double sense an "enabling" measure. It gives the Minister powers which he may or may not choose to employ, and it proposes to build roads which the motorist may or
  960
  may not decide to use. The experience of Oxford and other show-places is that not only light traffic and public service vehicles but quite a proportion of heavy traffic also prefers to continue to use the old road through the town rather than the by-passes which have been constructed at not inconsiderable expense round their extremities. I hope that at the very least the Minister will think it desirable to make it a condition of the licences which he gives to public service and other vehicles, that they should use the roads which are to be provided for them, if and when they are forthcoming. And, of course, there is the further consideration, that the present stream of heavy traffic has long been accustomed to the amenities provided on the present roads—the pull-ins, the cafeterias, rest-houses, garages and so on. It may be a long while, certainly unless we are very quick in providing amenities on the new roads, before they are prepared to abandon the amenities with which they are familiar, constructed beside the existing roads.
  All things considered, then, it seems to me extremely unlikely that the discomforts to which I have referred in the small village of which I am thinking will be removed by this measure in the foreseeable future. I very much hope, therefore, that local authorities will not see in this measure an excuse for still further postponing the necessary improvements on the existing roads. I noticed that the noble Earl in his opening speech did say that of course it was necessary to maintain the existing roads, but I was somewhat afraid that, in the context, he was referring merely to the surface of the roads rather than to the removal of such dangers as blind corners and roads through built-up villages. Perhaps he would be good enough to make that point clear in his final reply.
  There is one more point that we must not forget—namely, the problem of amenities. There is bound to be, if and when there is a road, the familiar ration (I almost said "the familiar rash") of garages, petrol stations, road-houses and all the rest of it. As I have just reminded your Lordships, we are not likely to get the heavy traffic off the familiar roads until we have provided those amenities elsewhere. In my reading of the Bill, which may be defective, I am unable to see that the Minister of Town and

  961
  Country Planning is expected to take any particular interest in this very real problem of the building of all these adjuncts to the new roads. And that, of course, is closely akin to another problem which very much concerns those interested in road accidents—that of severance. These roads, as Lord Cecil has reminded us, carrying a steady stream of high speed traffic, will be much more dangerous than railways to those who live near or beside them. They will be slashed across the countryside, occasionally between neighbouring village communities which have shared their amenities perhaps for centuries. They may, unless we watch this matter closely, impose long detours upon farm vehicles and cattle, upon pedestrians and cyclists. That is a matter in regard to which Amendments may have to be moved at a later stage. I do not know what Ministry is specially concerned with the problem of severance. Presumably it is the concern of a number of Ministries, and I trust that, whoever they are, they will pay due attention to it.
  My Lords, I hope the Minister will not feel that I am not supporting the Bill. I do welcome it, subject to the one or two reservations I have tried to put before your Lordships. And if I may return to the point with which I started, I do urge almost above everything else, that the prospect of what may one day eventuate from this measure should not cause local authorities to delay in making the sort of safety improvements in the existing roads to which I tried to draw your Lordships' attention at the outset.
  3.59 p.m.
  EARL BOWE: My Lords, I wish very much that I could welcome every Bill introduced by the Government Front Bench as wholeheartedly as I do the measure which they have produced this afternoon. The first reason for my welcome of the Bill is that it is the first tangible expression of the point of view that roads should be made to fit the traffic, rather than the traffic to fit the roads. That I consider to be a most valuable principle. We have had a number of speeches this afternoon, mostly, I think, if I may be allowed to say so without offence, rather damning the Bill with "gin and water" praise. Surely the point is this. There are 3,500,000 motor vehicles registered at the present time in the British Isles, and they are struggling constantly to use a road system which was
  962
  designed certainly more than a hundred years ago. If we allow that state of things to go on without trying, at any rate, to take direct steps to improve it, there is no doubt but that road transport in this country will be slowly strangled. That will affect every commodity produced in this country. Every single thing that is produced for export, or for that matter for any other purpose, will be affected. Defects in road transport strike at the very root of our production in this country, for the increased costs must be borne by everyone.
  More particularly, I welcome this Bill from the point of view of the hope which it gives of a possible reduction in road accidents. This is borne out by the experience of every other country where these motor roads are now in existence. There are at least six such countries from which we have data—Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, the United States and Denmark. All these countries have a modern road system, and in practically every case when the new roads have been constructed the accident figures have gone down in an amazing way. In the case of Germany, when the autobahn system was brought into use the accident figures were reduced by over 80 per cent., the same is equally true of America, though conditions, of course, are very different there.
  I am sure that noble Lords—particularly Lord Elton (who we know has made the promotion of road safety one of his principal tasks) and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil (to whom we have always listened on this question with great attention and respect)—will share my feeling when I ask: If by constructing a new road system in this country we can secure even a 40 per cent. reduction of road accidents, can we afford to wait another hour? Do not let us forget that during the ten years ending 1947, 67,000 people were killed on the roads of this country and about 1,421,000 were injured. Those are frightful figures, and I am sure that we all deeply deplore them. Surely we must do everything that we can to encourage the construction of new roads, if there is reason to believe that it will produce a drop in the accident level. Consider the Outer Drive at Chicago, which is used by 10,000,000 vehicles in the course of a year. The accident rate for the last year was eight. Think of that: eight accidents only! Normally the

  963
  figure would have been something like 189.
  The Oxfordshire County Council—a body in which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is particularly interested—have said that in their judgment by proper road construction, according to modern methods, the accident rate can be reduced by something between 58 per cent. and 73 per cent. Therefore, it seems to me that we must try to do something about this, from the point of view of reducing the number of road accidents, if for no other and better reason. It is a melancholy thought that as we sit here this afternoon, in nice comfortable circumstances, people are being killed and injured on the roads of this country who should not be killed or injured if the roads were properly designed. People are losing their lives at this present moment. How can we wait and spend time arguing about niceties connected with these matters? We ought, I submit, to go ahead. I only wish that this were not merely an enabling Bill, and that it embodied a forecast that within the next year or two we should really see a start made in dealing with this question. Up to now, all Governments in this country have proceeded on the patchwork improvement system.
  The noble Lord who spoke last mentioned his hopes of a by-pass being constructed. I was not clear where the road is to which he is referring, though I know most roads in that part of the world fairly well. It seemed to me that he was advocating what has already taken place at Daventry—the construction of a by-pass to by-pass the by-pass to the by-pass. That is more or less what has happened in several instances. A plan is brought in for a road to by-pass some little village and you merely divert traffic from one bottle-neck to another. No wonder that in a number of cases drivers do not consider it worth while using the by-pass in preference to the old road! A good illustration of that is afforded by the case of Crawley. Often it is a simpler matter to go through Crawley than to use the Crawley by-pass.
  Up to now, as I have said, we have had a policy of patchwork reconstruction, and what has it cost us? We are told that the cost of this new road improvement will work out at £150,000 a
  964
  mile. There was a main road in the Bristol area—no doubt the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill will be able to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" in the account of this matter—which was widened to 120 feet, to Ministry of Transport standards, at a cost of £221,600 per mile. Adapting, patching, widening or improving our existing roads is about the most expensive way in which we could deal with this matter. There are only two perfectly new roads in this country to-day. One is the road in Scotland which runs between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that is not perfect. It does not include any fly-over or fly-under junctions, and it is not a twin-track—at least, it was not when I last used it—for the whole of its length. It is an all-purpose road used by all forms of traffic. The other new road is the one between Liverpool and East Lancashire.
  Surely we ought to try to do something about this problem. Look at the existing trunk roads. Not one of them is adequate for the traffic using it. There are 1,400 level crossings on our main trunk roads; that is an anachronism if ever there was one. The noble Lord who spoke last (I hope he will forgive me for referring to him so frequently) instanced the difficulties experienced at a little village in Oxfordshire. I wonder how many of your Lordships would care to live in the little village of Markyate. It is just possible to get two big lorries in most parts of the road there—at some places it is not possible to get two side by side. Yet that road is a main artery for all the traffic between Birmingham and Coventry and London Docks. More than 5,000 vehicles use it every day. Imagine the feelings of any of your Lordships who has children if you had to live in that village. Think how you would feel if you had to leave the children in the house. You would probably have ten thousand fits as the result of worrying over what might happen to them if they were to run out of doors and cross the road. In these days it is incredible that such a narrow road should form a main artery for traffic. Surely we ought to do better than that.
  The illustration which I have just given is of exactly the sort of situation which this Bill will try to remedy. Take the case of the Birmingham road. It contains at different points no fewer than twenty-three different road surfaces Take

  965
  the Bristol road. It varies in width nineteen times between London and Bristol. Take A.1, the Great North Road—for the first 200 miles of its length only is there a twin track road. Surely we ought to be able to do something better than that. Noble Lords have spoken as if this were a Bill likely to finish in a road-rail war. Surely it is not that, but simply a Bill to enable the Government to look ahead and take steps in time to try and provide the country with a worthwhile road system.
  It seems to me that nobody has stopped this afternoon to consider the saving that may result. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said that we might have difficulty in buying more petrol. I should like to submit to the noble Lord that traffic using these special roads will secure a saving of fuel of roughly 40 per cent. An ordinary road operator using a 10-ton lorry will save roughly 30 per cent. in operating costs. All these savings will eventually become effective in the charges made for the operation of these vehicles and will represent a saving to industry as a whole. Therefore I feel there will be certain counter-balancing savings to put against the cost of constructing these roads. Every time a lorry is held up on a main road and started up again, it uses more rubber off its tyres than in one mile of ordinary running. These are not haphazard figures, but figures which have been ascertained after a great deal of research by the tyre companies.
  I welcome this Bill, but there are one or two points that I think require clarification. I was glad to heard what the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, said about the question of crossings. If we are to have crossings at every and any joint across the new roads, it will nullify the use of these roads, as the noble Lord so rightly said. If the crossings are made, there will probably have to be lights. Once we have lights we get back to exactly the same state of affairs as exists on the old roads. Where crossings are necessary, they should be made by fly-over or fly-under bridges. Another point of the greatest importance is the laying of mains—water mains, electrical cables and the like. Nothing does more damage to a road than constant excavations. People dig up the roads at intervals and destroy the surface, potholes develop and it is very difficult to put the road back in repair. Where
  966
  mains have to cross the new roads, they should be taken across in culverts specially constructed, and in no case should mains of any description be laid along new roads. If they are, repair parties will be constantly at work, and the moment that happens there will have to be restrictions of one kind or another on the use of the roads themselves. Therefore I hope that during the passage of this Bill the Government will be able to assure us that it is not their intention to lay mains along these roads, and that where mains are taken across, they will be taken across in culverts.
  There is much else I would like to say about the Bill, but I do not want to delay your Lordships unduly. Much has been said about cost and I would like to add a word about that. The cost of the autobahnen in Germany (although I do not know whether their cost bears any relation to the estimated cost of our new special roads) was £74,000 a mile. Of course, that was the pre-war value and probably the cost to-day will be double. There is a considerable difference between £74,000 a mile and £150,000 a mile. I do not know any more than the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, where the £150,000 comes from. I think we ought to be told something a little more definite on the subject of cost. When talking about autobahnen in Germany, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that construction proceeded at the rate of 650 miles per year. Construction went on at the rate of 240 yards a day with a single shift, and 440 yards working a double shift, and the actual rate went up as high as 580 yards a day. Whether we shall be able to achieve anything like that I do not know, but I do not see why we should not, using the most modern machinery such as was no doubt used in the case of the autobahnen. I do not think the Bill is an unduly expensive one, because I believe there will be certain savings to offset the cost. I feel that at lone last there is a chance that we may have roads made fit for the traffic, instead of having traffic made fit for the roads. I consider that while the cost may be large, it would be most economical to construct these roads as early as possible. I do not think we can afford to wait.
  4.17 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to build roads

  967
  at some distant date in the future which he thinks are needed to-day, expected universal, if not praise, at least acquiescence. I think he must feel now that he has been led somewhat into an ambuscade, because I have heard little praise that was not distinctly qualified. I personally am extremely glad that he has not proposed to build these roads now, because to do so would be utterly and completely at variance with every other aspect of the plan which the planners have unfolded to us from time to time. If and when national savings are available for such purposes, I sincerely trust that houses and schools will have first call on the type of resources which the noble Earl wants to see used for speed tracks. I gather that the length of these speed tracks is some 800 miles. I simply fail to see how it is that 800 miles of new roadway in this country can create a transformation in the entire transport problem of the Island. Of course, it is ludicrous to suggest any such thing. They provide for but a small fraction of the traffic going on in the Island.
  What is the situation with which we are faced to-day? We have an expanding commercial road haulage traffic; we have a contracting nationalised rail traffic; we have a fleet of private cars being gradually worn out, and private incomes which are wearing out as fast as the cars. I submit that to-day's conditions are no basis on which one can tell the type of roads we are going to require in ten years' time. I am afraid I have always regarded His Majesty's Government—I do not know quite the right expression to use—as "suckers." If there is any grandiose scheme going, I feel they will always fall for it. This is one of those schemes. I think my noble friend Earl Howe has also fallen. I have come across propaganda by road interests all over the world. It always runs on the same lines; it is extremely clever, but very specious, and it takes in a lot of people. I believe His Majesty's Government have been taken in.
  We have to consider the problem of traffic generally. Any of us who has had anything to do with traffic knows that in regard to capital improvements, which are guaranteed to produce savings within a guaranteed time, the sky is the limit. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of money which can be sunk into
  968
  improving the transport of this country, or of any other country. In some cases there may be a return on it; in some cases there will not—and often it will be incalculable. To take it to its logical conclusion, the transport of this country would not be complete until Britain was a cap of concrete, across which the noble Earl could plough his way at a speed which I have no doubt would suit him rather than me.
  The practical limit to transport is the amount of money which one is prepared to devote to the matter, including, of course, men and resources; one has to take in everything—road, rail, coastal shipping and the air. His Majesty's Government have inherited (I was going to say stolen, but I want a word between the two) the best railway system in the world. To put any goods on that system costs the community approximately 20 per cent. of the freight that is charged. We also have a very fine road system, and to put goods on that road system costs the community something like 80 per cent. of the freight charged. For the carriage of the goods it is generally more convenient to use the road, because in that way the goods are carried from door to door, and the user does that which is most convenient to him. How does he calculate the cost? He calculates the cost on what is charged to him.
  That is where what I call the great road fallacy creeps in. If you carry a ton of goods by road you are paying about 16s. for men and machines. If you send the same ton of goods by rail you are paying only about 4s. extra; the balance goes on overheads. So that by putting a ton of goods on the road the community is taking only 16s. from the man who sends them, but it is in effect costing the community 32s.—16s. for the men and vehicles employed on the road, and 16s. for the overheads the railway have not received. In that way the men and materials used in transport in this country are duplicated. The figure will be found in the Green Book of Statistics, and though I feel certain that planners would like to see it going down, it will not go down, of course, if you improve the facilities for using the road at the expense of the rail. The price system is bound to prevail. The use of the road increases, and the rail overheads have to be spread over a smaller and smaller

  969
  traffic. So the taxpayer has to step in and pay more, either as a consumer on his coal and his season ticket, or as a plain taxpayer in taxes.
  Of course, the remedy is to put the long-distance goods on the railways, where they were always intended to go. Why the Transport Commission have not taken this vital decision, I do not know. They have bought the road hauliers, and they have bought the railways. By now they ought to have decided whether they are to operate the railways at a perpetual loss, and the road hauliers at a profit, or whether they are going to close down the road hauliers, take the congestion off the road, and operate the railways at a profit. We expect a decision from them, but they will not face up to it. Until we get that decision, I feel it is premature to consider a Bill of this sort, because if the Transport Commission take that decision, which I and others believe to be right, a great deal of the need for these 800 miles of arterial speed track will no longer exist.
  4.27 p.m.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, speaking as a "sucker" of some fifteen years "suckering," I must heartily support this Bill. Like most previous speakers, I propose to deal mainly with the road side of this Bill, and I want to speak rather on the economic aspect. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill dealt with the cost of the roads themselves, but he did not deal with the saving that would result from them. We have heard to-day various opinions as to whether or not those savings are illusory. Certainly the suggestion has been made that one person who will not benefit from these roads is the farmer; all he will do, it is said, is to lose his land or suffer severance. But I suggest there is another way to look at that question. The farmer will certainly gain one benefit, in that he will get his goods more quickly to market, which to him and to the consumers of those goods is a very important point.
  It must not be thought, however, that he gets his goods more quickly to market only because they travel on these roads. That is limiting the matter, and ignoring one of the main results of building these roads. One of the results will be that the parallel road, which at the present moment is suffering so much from congestion, will become much freer, the
  970
  farmer's lorry will be able to go at a more even pace, and therefore in the end more speedily, without going at a fast maximum pace. It is probable that the farmer who suffers severance or loses his land will not reap that particular form of benefit, because the road which has been relieved may not be in his own immediate neighbourhood; but that advantage will go to other farmers, and must be borne in mind.
  We have also had mentioned the problem of the railways and the roads. I would suggest that a very short-sighted view has been taken in that respect. Unless we do something soon, the Minister of Transport, who, as has been said, has the road haulage on one side, and the railways on the other, will find that his railways are running all right, but that he cannot operate his road haulage because there is no room on the roads. It is a very serious situation, and it is becoming increasingly serious every month. Anyone who uses the roads as much as I do must notice the monthly increase in the traffic on them. When the Government see fit to release a few extra lorries and a few more cars for home consumption, the situation on the roads is going to be really serious, and economically the road haulage side of nationalised transport is going to find itself stranded. That, to my mind, means that, if that side is to survive, we must build these roads, and I do not see in the least why road haulage should place unnecessarily severe competition on the railways. I believe there is room for the two side by side.
  From the point of view of the private owner and the holders of C licences in this country, these roads will make a great difference. As my noble friend Lord Howe has mentioned, the saving in the cost of operating will be 32 per cent. for a 10-ton vehicle, and 17 per cent. for a 3-ton vehicle. But it is not only those people who will benefit. The firm with its commercial traveller, the big business operative who has a business in Liverpool, a business in London and, possibly, businesses in between, will be able to save his time; and time is something for which everybody in this country has to pay. Waste of time is just a waste of a national asset.
  On every ground, so far as I can see, there is an imperative demand for these roads, but the one upon which the most

  971
  imperative demand arises is that of road safety and the saving of life. The value of those lives to this nation would pay a dividend which, if any business man dared to pay it from a company to-day, would cause the Chancellor of the Exchequer to "twist his tail" for him. Without any of the other savings, this Bill is justified on the ground of the economic saving of life and accidents. We have lagged behind every other nation. Our roads suffered through two wars, and modernisation between the wars was completely neglected. We are at the moment the most backward nation in Europe, so far as road design is concerned, while we are the most forward nation in the number of vehicles per mile of road. Those two things do not marry. Our trade, if it is to compete with the rest of the world, will be dependent on our transport. If we waste money on our transport, we waste money and lives and we put up the price of our goods for export. We cannot afford to do it. We have to bring the price down; and proper roads will help us to do it.
  4.34 p.m.
  LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I do not intend to detain you for more than two or three minutes, because other noble Lords have said practically everything I wanted to say. I do want to support this Bill, however, because it is one which is long overdue. I may be a "sucker," but I still think it is a good Bill. We have had reference to speed tracks which are going to slash their way across the country. Speed tracks! Well, all I can say is that the secret of getting anything moving is to keep it moving. I will give your Lordships an instance. I live on a main line railway and there is a business train which, unfortunately, does not stop at my station but stops at one five miles away. There are about thirty business men who use that station in the morning and the evening, and we asked if it were not possible for the train to stop there for a minute. The answer came back that if it stopped at that station for a minute it would delay the "Cornish Riviera." Now the same thing happens on a road. A road jam fifty miles away can affect people coming out of London. If we have these motorways which will allow a free, uninterrupted flow of traffic, they need not necessarily be straight, so
  972
  long as the traffic knows that it can keep on moving. It is ridiculous to think that anybody wants to use these roads at sixty, seventy or eighty miles an hour. Their whole purpose is to get the traffic moving and to facilitate the egress and ingress to and from the big towns.
  I do not know how many of your Lordships have been to America, but possibly some of you have landed at Newark and have gone through the tunnel-way there. You do not stop from the time you leave Newark Airport until you get practically into the centre of New York. There is not a single traffic light. There are two lanes in the tunnel; there are policemen stationed about every 400 yards, and if you do not keep moving, or if you try to cross from the "slow" to the "fast" lane (to use a colloquialism) "you don't half get it!" The policemen get very annoyed, but they keep the traffic moving. Or take, for example, New York when the offices close. There is a mad surge out to Long Island. They go out by East End Drive or West End Drive, and the traffic keeps flowing right across and gets away. That has all been done by the construction of these motorways.
  But the most important point to which my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Sandhurst have referred, and to which I want to refer again, is the fact that it is going to keep death off the roads. It is going to help by keeping the heavy traffic on these motorways, where they know they will not have to apply the emergency brake. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has driven a tank transporter with a tank on it on wooden blocks, and have had to put on your brakes. The result is rather alarming. Those heavy vehicles, if taken on these new roads, will relieve the problem to a large extent, and the old roads will be left for the person who wants to travel slowly and admire the scenery. I hope that this Bill will be passed and that it will not be put into a pigeon-hole and forgotten. I remember the little man with the little nose who used to appear during the war peering over the wall, and if this Bill is forgotten I shall be sending the Minister one of those Mr. Chads with the words: "Wot—no motorways?"
  4.40 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the response

  973
  which your Lordships have given to this Bill, and I will do my best to answer some, at least, of the points raised during the debate. I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, on his first appearance at the Despatch Box. I think your Lordships will agree that his speech this afternoon shows that he is a considerable acquisition to the Opposition Front Bench. I can assure him that we shall always welcome any criticisms made by him in the spirit in which he made his criticisms to-day. He was good enough to give me advance notice of some of the points he intended to raise, and I shall, therefore, deal fairly fully with what he said.
  The noble Lord asked what was the relationship of this Bill to the transport policy of the Government. Our aim is the unification and co-ordination of all forms of transport. I can assure the noble Lord that this is not an incantation; it is a real and practical policy which we believe will do a great deal of good to British transport. There is nothing in this Bill that conflicts in any way with the aims set up in the Transport Act: the provision of a properly integrated system of public transport, in which all forms of transport will play their due part.
  In time, of course, the British Transport Commission will be the main provider of long-distance transport for goods. When acquisition under the Transport Act has been completed, the Commission will own or control 42,000 goods vehicles, of which 32,000 will engage permanently in long-distance road haulage. The operation of these vehicles will be greatly assisted by the provision of special roads, as will the activities of the Commission in connection with road passenger services. It is our main aim to ensure a proper transport system, embracing both good roads and good railways. Our first duty to the public is to provide a cheap and efficient transport system, and for this purpose we want to improve both our roads and our railways. The different forms of transport are surely complementary, and if we go ahead and improve our railways pari passu with the improvement of our roads I see no reason why the roads should undercut the railways or throw them out of business. That is our aim.
  The noble Lord asked me another question, concerning the form of compensation for injury resulting from the building of
  974
  these roads. I think the noble Lord would have liked a requirement in the Bill to provide accommodation for the agricultural interests disturbed, and that he would prefer this form of compensation to a compensation in money. I cannot see, however, why the new motorway should raise any greater difficulty than exists at present.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely the answer is that a man can go across a special purpose road but will not be allowed to go across this one.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: He will be compensated in the same way, however he wishes to cross.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: He will be prohibited, as I understand it, under this Bill from crossing the road with his cattle, or whatever it may be. It is possible at present for him to have access to the main roads, but that will not now be allowed.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is true that in the interests of safety access to any new single-purpose road must be controlled. There will inevitably be problems, and these problems are dealt with in other legislation. If there is any case for altering the arrangements with regard to compensation, this should be done generally, and not solely in relation to the special roads. I cannot agree that there is a special case so far as these motor roads are concerned. We have no reason to suppose that the current code will not continue to work satisfactorily. Under the current code, owners and tenants have statutory rights to compensation for the value of land taken and for severance or injurious affection caused thereby. Their claims can go to independent arbitration. It is the experience of the Ministry of Transport that negotiations with owners and other people interested rarely break down on this point. Arrangements are normally possible whereby other accommodation is made available, or the owner is left with money compensation.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The point was that in order to cause the minimum disturbance to the permanent interests of agriculture, it would be much preferable, as a matter of policy, to offer accommodation rather than financial compensation.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I accept what the noble Lord says, and I believe that in many cases accommodation is provided by the highway authority.
  I should like to say something about the question of powers of land acquisition under this Bill. This question was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. This Bill does not enlarge to any considerable extent the existing powers in relation to compulsory acquisition of land. To suggest that would, I think, be to misunderstand the Bill. The noble Lord will observe that in Clause 10 there is no provision for general powers of land acquisition, and the reason is that these general powers are already available to highway authorities under other Acts. Clause 10 provides for an extension of those powers of compulsory acquisition, so that they can be used for certain purposes in connection with the special roads. I should like to point out that the extension of these powers is very carefully set out and carefully limited.
  The land acquisition powers of Clause 10 are extended beyond the usual limit of 220 yards from the centre of the road for two purposes, and these two purposes are specified in terms in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 10. The two purposes are, in the first place, to provide petrol stations and other facilities, garages and whatever works may be necessary when they are directly connected with the construction and use or maintenance of the motorway. The second purpose is for the alteration or diversion of side roads which is essential in order to make the motorway an effective road for the use of transport. Noble Lords will agree that these new powers are very limited, and that they are set out distinctly in Clause 10 of the Bill.
  I should now like to pass to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, and by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about pedestrian crossings—
  EARL HOWE: Crossings, but not pedestrian crossings—I was referring to Clause 12.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, crossings as distinct from tunnels or bridges. What I think both noble Lords were afraid of is that these crossings might interfere with the main purpose of the motor road, which is to provide a steady
  976
  uninterrupted flow of traffic. In Clause 12 it is made permissible for a crossing for pedestrians to be authorised on the level, as opposed to a bridge or a tunnel. I should like to emphasise that it would be very rarely desirable to permit such crossings in practice. They would not be contemplated where there is any question of danger to the road users or interruption of the flow of traffic. However, there might be some instances in which it would be safe to allow pedestrians to cross on the level, and it would be absurd for this Bill to prohibit any such thing and to make it essential for the expensive alternative to be provided—that is to say, a tunnel or a bridge. Suppose, for example, there was a long stretch of straight road; why should not pedestrians cross at a point on this long stretch of straight road where they could see for a considerable distance in both directions? That would be reasonably safe. In a case of that kind it would be absurd to go to the expense of providing a tunnel or a bridge.
  I should like to say how grateful we are for the support offered to this Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, because it makes us doubly sure that the Bill will contribute to the safety of the roads and will lessen the number and seriousness of road accidents. If this Bill is underwritten in that respect by the noble Viscount, we may feel really sure of ourselves; because if it had failed in any degree we could be certain that the noble Viscount would have dropped upon us like a ton of bricks. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that we share his desire that agricultural interests should be considered. I know he appreciates that we are at one with him on that matter. We sincerely think—and I believe this view was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in the course of his remarks—that agriculture will benefit by cheaper transport and that in the long run, especially as these roads develop, the farmers will find it easier and cheaper to get their goods to market. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, thought the figure of £150,000 per mile as the cost of these new roads was out of date; but it is in fact the present estimate—an estimate based upon present-day costs. Of course, I am not offering that as a firm estimate of what the cost will be at the time that these roads are built. Maybe the cost

  977
  would be higher. I do not think anybody would offer to hazard a guess as to what the precise cost will be in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
  EARL HOWE: Does the figure of £150,000 per mile cover the construction of the road, or is it just a charge for compensation, or something like that?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should not like to answer that question without consulting my advisers on the point. I have not the noble Earl's knowledge of what, as a rule, goes into these estimates. I would wish to see a breakdown of the figure. If I may, I should like to thank the noble Earl warmly for his support. We all listen with great respect to what the noble Earl says about road safety and the use and construction of roads, because he has made himself a leading authority on the subject. We are accustomed to hearing him as such when these matters are debated in this House. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for their support. It was encouraging for us on this side to observe that most of the Back Benchers on the opposite side of the House, with their characteristic and (if I may say so) admirable independence of mind, were so strongly in favour of the provisions of the Bill.
  May I now reply to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton? Your Lordships have a great deal of other business to which to attend to-day so I will, if I may, confine myself merely to his main point about amenities, because that is the point that was not touched upon earlier by myself or by others in the course of the debate. I think that this question of the proper and agreeable appearance of the motor roads is a point of great importance. Of course, we all look at the motorway first from the point of view of its use. Possibly some people would say that if it serves its primary purpose of being a good road for road users, we should not worry about anything else. But I am sure that noble Lords and all other far-sighted people would say that we should go further and ask ourselves what these motorways will look like. Will they disfigure the countryside? Are they to be ugly necessities, or can we combine their practical virtues with success in making
  978
  them an adornment, or at least a neutral factor in their surroundings rather than an eyesore?
  A great deal of thought is being given to technical matters of construction and design, but, rightly so we think, attention is also being paid quite as much to the look of these motor roads. Thoughtful design can easily avoid the bleak monotonous effect of endless straight stretches of concrete and bridges starkly silhouetted against the sky. We are planning for motorways that will fit in unobtrusively with the countryside, taking advantage of natural features like woods and hills to mask the road and its bridges, and swing the alignment of the road in gentle curvatures rather than dead straight lines. Building materials can be chosen to suit the locality, and there is a considerable art in correlating the vertical and lateral lines of a road to avoid disharmony and to achieve, it may be, a measure of beauty.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The "New Look," in fact!
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We hope that the new roads will also have the "New Look," in the sense meant by the noble Viscount. Designing a road so that it will be efficient and also look good is not a short nor an easy task. And it is rendered the harder and the longer because of the congested condition of the roads of the country at this moment. Our road engineers must survey to find, not only an alignment that is efficient and æsthetically inoffensive, but, in addition, one that causes the minimum interference with property and makes the minimum demands upon land which is useful for agricultural purposes. In no other country in the world do the location and design of a new road give rise to so many difficulties and problems. The blue-print of a major highway may take years to complete, and the road engineer needs all his skill to produce the good-looking and efficient road that everyone wants, because he also has to satisfy the requirements of planning, of agriculture and of private interests. It is a difficult task, but one which is not beyond the outstanding ability of the road engineers of this country. Theirs will be a great opportunity when the time comes, and I believe that they will be worthy of it. I thank your Lordships

  979
  again for the support you have given to this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL.
  4.59 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Loans by the Corporation
  (3) The Corporation shall not, except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve, make a loan to any person unless he is carrying on the business of distributing cinematograph films to persons carrying on the business of exhibiting such films to the public, and the loan is to be employed in financing the production of such films.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (3) to omit "except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve." The noble Viscount said: I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has a proposal to make, and so I will be content with formally moving this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 30, leave out ("except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve").—(Viscount Swinton.)
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: When this Bill was before your Lordships in Committee last time, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, deployed some very powerful arguments against the definition of the "classes of case" in which my right honourable friend proposed to give his initial instruction to the Film Finance Corporation, to enable them to loan finance direct to the independent producer and not through the
  980
  ordinary channels as set out in the Bill—namely, through the distributive agencies. The noble Viscount's point was, I believe, that the proposed definition would defeat the very argument I had previously used as to the risk which the Corporation would have to bear. If your Lordships will allow me, I would like to quote exactly what I said from Column 597 of the Official Report of February 8:
  "In proper cases the Corporation must be prepared to run proper risks. They will be expected—and I think your Lordships will agree, rightly expected—to operate with reasonable prudence, but it must not be forgotten … that the Corporation are being established for the purpose of supporting and encouraging the production of films. If, at the end of five years the £5,000,000 which is being made available remains undiminished, but if that result has been achieved only because the Corporation have in fact done very little business, this Bill, which has been received so warmly … will have failed to achieve its purpose."
  My Lords, I was so seized with the powerful nature of the noble Viscount's argument, that I undertook to take this back and have consultations with the noble Viscount and also with my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount for affording me the benefit of his long experience, with the result that, after further consultations with my right honourable friend, he has agreed to adopt the principle of giving the Finance Corporation a free hand in their decision as to how finance should be arranged. And his initial instruction to the Corporation will be altered to cover that position.
  I think perhaps it would be as well if I now read the instruction, as my right honourable friend proposes to amend it, which defines the "classes of case" referred to in the noble Viscount's Amendment. My right honourable friend proposes, as soon as the Corporation is set up, to authorise the directors to make loans to companies organised to carry out a programme of production of cinematograph films and equipped with the necessary experience in a relevant type of production, provided that there is an adequate amount of private investment ranking with or behind any money lent by the Corporation. My right honourable friend the President is prepared to make that an initial instruction. I think it is also as well to repeat once again that it is his intention that

  981
  this Corporation should take wide and long views. And if, in the end, the £5,000,000 is diminished or—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, would like plain language—is lost, but the Corporation have achieved their purpose in establishing the production of independently-produced British films, I think the noble Viscount will agree that the Corporation will have justified their existence. In view of that undertaking and assurance, I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the Minister. I think this is a satisfactory arrangement. I do not mind whether the provision is inserted in the Bill or in a regulation or directive—the Minister of State likes "directive," the President of the Board of Trade likes "regulation"—but at any rate, it means the order given to the Corporation as to how they are to do their job. My whole anxiety was that they should be left a full discretion in this business. I say at once that in a particular case I think they ought to have the right to require the borrower to take an ultimate risk. I do not believe that that will be the mass of cases, but I can well suppose that the Corporation might say "Here is a case where we think the producer ought to reduce the costs a little." Obviously, they cannot go in and manage the business and get them down.
  Alternatively, there might be a case where the Corporation think that he or his colleagues are taking a little too much out in fees or costs as the business goes along. I can readily imagine that in such a case the Corporation might say, "We are not going to become a joint adventurer with you in this. We cannot control you directly. We cannot do your job for you. If this is the way you are going to do it, we think you are entitled to some finance, but you have got to bear 10 per cent. (or whatever proportion it may be) of the final risk yourself, and we shall come in between the banks and you." On the other hand, they may well find that it is a good venture, that the film ought to be a success, though of course they have to be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that the earnings of the film, both here and overseas, will meet the costs. In such a case they may say: "This is a well-managed business; we think that the budget of costs seems
  982
  reasonable, and we do not think anybody is getting excessive remuneration out of it. This is a scheme into which we ought to go as a joint adventurer." And they may say, "It is the last 20 or 25 per cent. of the money that has to be found, and we will go into that as a joint adventurer, each taking our risk pari passu."
  I think that would be a perfectly proper thing to do. As was originally proposed, the Corporation could not do that; they had always to come in as, what I called, for the sake of convenience, "second mortgagees." I do not think that was right. Here they will be in a position to judge every case on its merits, and to go in as joint adventurers if they think that is the right thing to do. But if they think they ought to be stricter in their financial terms, they can come in more or less in the position of secured creditors or mortgagees. I think that is a right discretion to give them. These regulations have now been given to us in a convenient form, but I would like an assurance because the President should not be tied to this process, because we have to learn as we go along, and he may want to alter this. I would like the assurance—I rather think it was given last time, but it might be repeated—that if the Minister finds it necessary to make any change he will inform Parliament. I think this is part of our general understanding, but I take it that in that case he will not hereafter change the regulations in such a way as to make the financial terms more onerous than they are made here.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I would like to answer that question straight away. The President has no intention of altering these instructions which he is empowered to give the Corporation without affording Parliament the opportunity of expressing its opinion.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very grateful for that assurance. It is extremely satisfactory, and I think that probably it is in the interests of the Corporation to give them a direction of this kind; I think it will strengthen their hand. I think the Corporation have to be tough, practical and imaginative. I sincerely hope that they will secure people with all those characteristics. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I think we have had a useful debate in this House, and that in consequence the Bill

  983
  leaves here—as I hope most Bills leave this House—a better measure than it was when it entered. I hope that the Corporation will be successful in its endeavour. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  5.12 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, before putting the Motion for the Third Reading, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, has been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament the interests of the Crown in so far as they are affected by the said Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 19 [Borstal Training]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from and including "subject" to the end of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the Amendments made at the Report stage to subsection (2) of Clause 56. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to the end of subsection (2).—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Expenses and grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause, after subsection (6):
  "(7) Any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided
  984
  by Parliament under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, shall be defrayed out of moneys so provided."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is required to ensure that payments made by local authorities under the Bill shall rank for Exchequer equalisation grant under the Local Government Act of 1948. It is in common form. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 40, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments (Privilege) made.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I refer to one of the points raised in the Committee stage? This Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, is, of course, only part of the story; the rest of the story is contained, though not extensively, in the English Criminal Justice Act which was passed last Session. I suggested in Committee that a short-circuiting method should be employed for introducing part of that Act into this Bill, but the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack thought that that method was objectionable. I am bound to admit that when I examined more closely the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Viscount, I came to see that there was great force in them. The Lord Chancellor said he did not see why it should take an indefinite time to bring about the final consolidation of the Criminal Justice Act affecting Scotland. I cannot say that I hope to obtain a promise from him, but I would like to press him that so far as possible he will see that the matter is expedited. I am sure he appreciates the inconvenience of the administration of criminal justice in Scotland coming under two Acts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Earl was good enough to say that he was almost convinced by what I said on the previous occasion, I feel that I must do my best to meet him now. I cannot give him any promise, for, as I said before, to do so would be far more than my place is worth. On the other hand I give him my sympathy, and I will put this measure before those who

  985
  are concerned to consider the order in which we undertake our consolidation. He will realise that there is rather a long queue of Bills waiting for consolidation, but I should think that the consolidation here involved would be comparatively simple and would not take very long. Therefore, not only will I put this Bill in the queue, but I shall see if I can jump it up a few places. I cannot say more than that. The noble Earl has the satisfaction of knowing that he has my sympathy and I have told him what I will endeavour to do.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
  5.17 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I confess that the speech I have to make is more agreeable to me than the one which I had to make yesterday. Then we were treading on ground which was only a thin crust over burning fires of political controversy underneath. To-day I hope we shall not have to indulge in any controversial matter. As we always disclose interest, I ought perhaps to disclose that I am the President of the Travel Association. That is not a body which has any ulterior motive for making money, but it does try to attract foreign visitors to this country, and I think it is having a not inconsiderable measure of success. In my view, it is vitally important to push on with this all we can, and to achieve a still larger measure of success. I hope and believe that if and when this theatre is built it will be an added inducement to visitors to come to this country.
  On the other hand, quite frankly, I do not support the Bill on any materialistic ground, I support it on other grounds, and for reasons which in due course I will expound. The genesis of this scheme undoubtedly is due to the work of the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre
  986
  Committee. They worked for a long time on this project and by about the year 1930 they had amassed a sum of something like £150,000. I believe I am right in saying that the fact that they had succeeded to that extent was largely due to the tireless energy of Mr. Geoffrey Whitworth. By the year 1937 they had acquired a site in South Kensington, and thereafter a project arose for the exchange of that site with the London County Council for a site on the South Bank, in the area which is to be reconstructed. Mr. Oliver Lyttelton succeeded in amalgamating the National Theatre Committee with the Committee of the Old Vic. I think that was a very happy amalgamation, because the National Theatre Committee's function is to build a theatre and the Old Vic is concerned in the successful running of a theatre.
  Ever since the days of Miss Lilian Baylis and before, the Old Vic have done excellent work in putting on good plays. The exchange has been effected and that exchange, as well as the dealings with the Government which followed, have been largely in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. Apparently he knows how to handle the Chancellor of the Exchequer better than anybody else! To his efforts and to his enthusiasm a very great deal is due, and those of us interested in this project would like to pay our tribute to the work he has done.
  It is at long last the intention of the London County Council to develop the South Bank—I think I may say, not a decade too soon. It is to be developed, I hope and believe, on a grand and imaginative scale. It has been described as a "future cultural centre." I agree with Mr. Lyttelton about that phrase. It is a phrase which fills me with gloom and despondency. It is Teutonic; it is dull, and it lacks the sparkle and gaiety which are of the essence of the whole idea. But somebody, no doubt, will invent a better and happier phrase. The centre is to have a concert hall, and those who have had to listen to music in the arid wastes of the Albert Hall will realise how much that is needed. It is to have two theatres, one with a seating capacity of about 1,200 and the other, a smaller and more intimate theatre—and that is very necessary—with seating for about 500. Here we have private enterprise, municipal enterprise and State enterprise all working together, each playing an appropriate part.

  987
  The Bill authorises the payment of £1,000,000 of taxpayers' money towards this project if and when the theatre is built. Some of your Lordships may ask yourselves: "Are we justified in expending State aid on this sort of project?" Unfortunately in the conditions of to-day, Mæcenas is dead, and I do not see any new Mæcenas arising, unless it is the people themselves. We have to try to interest the whole people in this sort of project so that they will encourage and support it. I believe that the theatre is by far the greatest means of encouragement that exists for the mass of men to widen their horizons. The theatre is a meeting place for all types and all classes. It is the popular market-place for the exchange of ideas and, together with the concert hall, the chief centre, outside sport, for collective enjoyment. Because of this, the power for education it possesses can be a natural and an unpedantic influence, an influence that I believe to be of first importance. After all, the stage provides a world in miniature, where every form of experience and emotion can be portrayed, history revealed, poetry and satire expressed, laughter enjoyed and the power of language be immediately felt. Our English drama holds first place in the literature of the world. It is unbelievably rich and exciting and varied. Yet we have never had a National Theatre; nor have we used our national heritage to the best advantage.
  I hope if will be possible to cheapen the price of seats so as to bring innumerably more people within its magic circle. Not only would the general public benefit but a new incitement to invent would be given to architects, authors, designers of scenery and properties, producers and actors, and work would be found for them. As I have said, I believe that visitors will be stimulated to visit London from all over the world. I confess that I am proud that it is under a Government of which I am a humble member that, for the first time in our history, such a plan is being realised. We have been criticised for our red tape, for our concentration on the material aspects of life, and no doubt it has done us good. But, of course, these things are the preliminary necessities, the means to an end; and that end, surely, should be the raising of the mental standards of our people. Men
  988
  cannot live by bread alone, nor by comfort and health alone; nor, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has shown us recently, even by duty alone. Man at his best must be stimulated by his imagination. It is his great incitement to be and to do something beyond the commonplace. So we have endeavoured to improve education, and to encourage the appreciation of the arts through the Arts Council. I believe that one of the most hopeful features of our life to-day is the added interest which the people are taking in good music and in good works of art. More people than before the war are visiting our picture galleries, concert halls and museums. We now ask the authority of Parliament to allow us to finance this National Theatre, with its surrounding workshops, and to animate, by this means further artistic achievement.
  I suppose it is a fact that under existing conditions it is impossible to put on first-rate shows with first-rate actors, except by charging high prices. In such circumstances, it is only by a subsidised theatre that the best can be made available for all. I believe that what turns men's minds away from war, and from exaggerated and extreme political movements, is the opportunity for personal creation; and there we have ever been in the forefront. Perhaps Britain can now show, with the coming-of-age of her working classes, that they can emulate, and must emulate, the standards and quality and example given them by their parents and guardians, her old aristocracy. By the building of a National Theatre on the Thames side we shall, I hope, make a real contribution towards the ideal of a people's civilisation.
  Now, my Lords, I can avail myself of this opportunity—because no one can stop me—to add a few irregular observations, which will no doubt indicate my prejudices, and probably my ignorance. I devoutly hope that this theatre will have attached to it a really good restaurant. When I go to the theatre nowadays, not being a man who takes much exercise, I must say that my arms begin to ache with the constant passing and re-passing of cups of tea, which I think would be much better taken outside in a restaurant. Next, I would say that I sincerely hope that this theatre will be set in a district which has a life and vitality of its own. I do not

  989
  want to see this National Theatre surrounded by all sorts of academic buildings and Government offices, from which everybody has gone before the theatre begins; or to drive to some place like the City, through all those ghostly habitations, as they are in the evening, peopled only by cats. If those are the surroundings in which this theatre has to work, I think it is rather a gloomy prospect for the theatre. I hope the area around it will be an area throbbing with interest and vitality.
  What I have to say now is even more irregular than anything I have said so far. I hope that the area which can be devoted to this theatre will be as large as possible, if one is to have the added workshops, and so on, that are necessary. That I believe to be very important. A new National Theatre is now being built in Stockholm (of course, they have had one for a long time, because they are a highly civilised people) and I am told that they are devoting no less than two and a half acres to it. At Malmo in Sweden, which is a town only about the size of Exeter, where they are also building another National Theatre, they are devoting to it a space of two acres. I am well aware that land in London is a very different proposition from land in Malmo and I am not suggesting that we can possibly entertain a scheme on those lavish lines. But I do hope that, within the necessary limitations imposed upon us, we shall remember that it is important to get as much land as we can.
  There my irregularities end, and I can only hope that no one will ever use them in evidence against me. So far as building at the present time is concerned, that, of course, is out of the question. We cannot contemplate it for some time. First of all, this site will be covered by the Exhibition, and the possibility of building will not arise until after that. Nevertheless we had to bring this forward at the present time, because if the London County Council are now making their ultimate plans they must know whether they have to provide for this National Theatre—in short, whether it is to be a reality. That depends upon whether we can provide the money to build it. And we have to answer that question to-day. Although we cannot build the theatre, we have to tell the London County Council that in their ultimate plans they should provide for it. This also must be
  990
  said. When the times of depression come—and we shall be very foolish, my Lords, if we think they will never come again—we must have our plans ready (we have been discussing to-day an illustration of that) to put into force. This is one of the plans which I hope will be put into force. My Lords, I believe, on material grounds, that it is a wise thing to do; I believe, on wider grounds, that it is the right thing to do. I shall be very happy to have (as I believe I shall have) support from all quarters of the House for this project. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  5.35 p.m.
  LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, I have not troubled your Lordships with many observations during the past few years, because the position which I held made it a little difficult for me to engage in controversy. I confess that on more than one occasion I have suffered in silence, and refrained even from good words. My freedom is now restored, but I am certainly not going to use it now in a controversial speech. Indeed, I feel that it would satisfy my own conscience, and your Lordships, after hearing the admirable introduction of this Bill by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, if I confined myself to the one observation that I concur with what he has said and have nothing to add to it. But perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a few remarks in support of what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
  My only regret, which I am sure your Lordships share, is that a measure of this sort was not put on the Statute Book a long time ago. If it had been, we should now possess a National Theatre which would have been built at a very much lower cost than the estimated cost of the one that is now proposed; we should have learned and appreciated a great deal more of the works of Shakespeare and other dramatists, ancient and modern; we should have had a better-educated public and a higher standard of acting. I believe it is true to say that the plays of Shakespeare provide the best training there is for the young actor. According to such researches as I have made, only once in the past thirty-six years has a serious attempt been made (apart from to-day) to achieve a purpose

  991
  of this kind. That was in another place in 1913, on a Private Member's Motion, which sought to establish a National Theatre, with trustees, and to secure support and assistance from the Government of that day.
  The mover of that Motion was himself a member of the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre Committee. In those days, I believe, they had already secured about £100,000 of the £500,000 that it was estimated would be required. The object of the Motion was to persuade the Government to contribute a portion of the balance. The Government were not to be persuaded—and, surprisingly, it was a Liberal Government. But, as the old poet said:
  "Even good Homer nods, and long toil is an excuse for slumber."
  Arguments used on that ocasion—I do not agree with them—may still have some relevance in the minds of some people. One was that it would be unwise for the Government to take on the responsibility for a theatre for the production of plays if private commercial enterprise had not thought it possible to produce a profit in that way. Another argument was that the public were not educated, and that the Government ought not to step in until they were satisfied that they had an enthusiastic, interested and educated public. It was also argued that it was not the Government's business to initiate a project of that kind, but to crown it. I am very glad that none of those arguments appeals to His Majesty's Government to-day. The only offer that was made at that time was a very tentative one, that the Government would consider the provision of a subsidy, of an indeterminate amount, when—and only when—the promoters acquired the site, built the theatre, equipped it and endowed it.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: What is called the "end" money.
  LORD SOULBURY: That was not a very expensive form of coronation for the Government to indulge in. Of course, one has to remember that in those days, with a Budget of £190,000,000, the provision of anything in the neighbourhood of £500,000 was considered formidable.
  992
  In fact, the Government in those days were restrained, curious as it may sound, by the fear of losing money. It may be said for His Majesty's Government to-day that they have demonstrated on more than one occasion that they are not in the least perturbed by any such fear. The National Theatre is not, I think, likely to be a paying proposition. In the course of the debate in another place, an expert admitted that something like 300,000 to 400,000 persons would have to see a play in order to ensure its success. That means a long run. I am hoping that the National Theatre will be more in the nature of a repertory theatre, and that we may be able to see in the course of three or four years all or most of the plays of Shakespeare. Then again, I understand the idea is that the seats should be cheap, and I sympathise with that view. The figure was put at prices varying from 6d. to 2s. 6d. The noble and learned Viscount has said there are to be two theatres, one to seat 1,200 and another to seat 500. At those prices the larger theatre cannot charge much less than the theatre seating 500.
  Besides the £1,000,000 initial cost, there are the running costs to provide; and may I say that I hope they will not be placed on the rates? I was attracted by the suggestion of the Government spokesman in another place that the deficit, if deficit there is, should be met by the Arts Council. I think we must face it that the National Theatre may well not be self-supporting. Personally, that does not worry me much, because, as the noble and learned Viscount has indicated, I think we shall get repayment in many other ways. Your Lordships will recollect that Demosthenes once complained of the Athenians that they were prepared to spend much more money on dramatic festivals than they were on a naval expedition. Not many people now remember, or very much care, about Athenian naval expeditions, but their drama has lived for ever. I say this to reassure the stricter economist than myself that, although there may be losses, I think it will be a very long time indeed before the National Theatre can lose as much as we have already lost in one year on potatoes.
  The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has informed us, quite rightly I am sure, that because of the Exhibition

  993
  we shall not get this theatre before 1951. He said that it may be some years after that, and he also stated (although I do not entirely agree with him) that this delay would in some ways be excused—I will not say welcomed—because the project could be put in a pigeon-hole and brought out against a trade depression. I am not altogether enamoured of that proposal—and for this reason. I can foresee the time when, perhaps from one of these Benches, in reply to a request that the authorisation to commence this theatre be given, a noble Lord may rise and tearfully say that the is sorry he cannot authorise the commencement of the theatre because, to his lasting sorrow and deep regret, the slump has not yet arrived! May I ask whether, before this depression arrives, it would not be possible to give a somewhat lower priority to one or other of the Government offices in course of erection or contemplated?
  I frankly admit that between the two wars the predecessors of this Government were considerably to blame in not initiating a project of this kind, and it would have been a useful step to combat the depression which was prevailing. Of course, in those days, State interference was by no means so fashionable as it has now become, and even to-day, it seems to me one has to watch anything like State control over art with a considerable amount of suspicion and care. Such a delicate, sensitive and indefinable thing as genius does not take kindly to bureaucracy; much less can it flourish within the prescribed limits of some ideology or political or economic faith. We have seen what happened to art among the Nazis, and I make the same prophecy with regard to Russia to-day, where I think it is highly imprudent, if not dangerous, for an artist to produce a play with a bourgeois or Western flavour, unpalatable to the authorities. It is a great pity that the rulers of Soviet Russia do not refer to the works of Aristophanes, because if they did they would read what he said about the head of the Athenian State in the Peloponnesian War and yet got away with it. Had he said the same things about our Prime Minister, I think he would have spent the rest of his time writing his plays in the Isle of Man! Yet the theatre of Athens was a public institution, and the State was entirely and
  994
  completely responsible for Athenian drama.
  In Clause 2 of the Bill, the Treasury are given a voice in the appointing of additional trustees for this theatre. That is inevitable. Public money is being spent, and the public must have a voice. To that extent we are admitting a Trojan Horse into the Borough of Lambeth; but I do not think we need fear the Treasury in this case, even when bringing gifts, subject to the most important proviso that the private management should consist of those who know something about managing theatres, and of the people of the theatrical profession, and not people selected from gifted amateurs or æsthetically-minded politicians. The Government's spokesman in another place said that it was too soon to consider the question of management, and I think he is probably right. But it is a vital point, and I for one would be happy if it were left in the hands of the Old Vic.
  I noticed, also, that in the debate in another place, a suggestion was made that there should be a Minister of Fine Arts. I hope there is nothing of the sort. This gentleman, it was said, would stand apart from Party politics. A Minister, whatever Government appoint him, cannot usually stand apart from Party politics, and such a political hermaphrodite is unknown to our mythology.
  There are few more points with which I want to trouble your Lordships. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned the site, and I think your Lordships agree that the new site is preferable, both from historic associations and, I think, from its proximity to the great centres of population. I share his views in regard to the term "cultural centre." To me it is too redolent of earnest-minded, professorial zealots and long-haired intelligentsia. Like all your Lordships, no doubt, I should welcome an invitation to dine at the National Theatre, and see a play; but if I were asked to attend the "Lambeth Cultural Centre" I should have a vision of nut cutlets and a lecture on eurythmics. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack with regard to the environment: I think it is most important that it should not be austere and highbrow. After all, as regards the drama, Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square and Shafesbury Avenue at present form our cultural centre; and

  995
  although it may not be possible or desirable to imitate all the intimacy and irregularity of that area, at any rate I hope that the new lay-out will try to develop something of the charm and, if you will, the romance which have endeared that part of the world to Londoners for generations.
  When the new scheme is complete, I think its benefits will immensely outweigh its cost or any possible losses that may accrue. After all, it will do a great deal to preserve the English language—and that is certainly in need of preserving. It will improve the spoken word; we shall be able to hear English pronounced as it ought to be pronounced by people who have studied the subject. It will set a standard, much as the Comédie Française has set a standard in France. It will provide further inspiration for our great creative dramatic genius. It is of much more value to hear poetry spoken—and particularly dramatic poetry—than it is to read it. There were few books in ancient Greece, and few people read or could read Homer; but thousands upon thousands heard him recite his poetry and knew his lines by heart. No one can estimate the colossal contribution that those lines made to the poetic and dramatic genius of the Greeks. With ourselves, the Bible has played a similar part—I wish I could say it still played that part. In past times, I imagine, the majority of the population regularly heard passages from the Bible; and there again, nobody can estimate the contribution that the Bible and its translators have made to our literature. The plays of Shakespeare himself were written not to be read but to be heard and seen; and hearing and seeing them will, I am certain, prove one of the greatest inspirations to thought and literature in the world.
  The National Theatre should provide a very valuable stimulus to the dramatic profession. Dramatic actors and actresses in the provinces may graduate to the National Theatre, and the competition which would result would do much to ensure a high standard. I believe that is the practice in Sweden to-day. Then there is the question of employment; it should be possible to subsidise the theatre to provide employment. There are at present many actors and actresses,
  996
  especially younger ones, who are constantly in and out of employment.
  Finally, the National Theatre must not be regarded as being for Londoners only—nor indeed for the United Kingdom only. It is in London because London will be a centre for the whole of the Commonwealth. Nor must the theatre itself be solely a memorial to Shakespeare. There is no other land in the world so rich as ours in either the quantity or the quality of its dramatic art; and we can now look forward to the time—and I hope it will not be far ahead—when the National Theatre will be presenting to visitors from all over the world examples of our dramatic art from the sixteenth century to the present day and onwards.
  5.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I have been connected with this project for longer than I care to remember, and it gives me the greatest pleasure to know that this measure is at last going to reach the Statute Book. For many years I have belonged to a small band of enthusiastic people working in that obscurity which is always the lot of people who are active in an unpopular cause. But we were united in a conviction that it is a disgrace to this country, which has the greatest dramatic literature in the world, that we should be the only civilised country in Europe without a National Theatre. Nevertheless it seemed an impossible thing to achieve, and for a very long time we made no headway at all. I sometimes think there are certain tides in politics, so that you can succeed at one moment and fail at another. No one can account for those tides. For instance, your Lordships will remember the case of slum areas in our urban towns. For about a hundred years people lamented the existence of those slums, and all through our richest hour they said it was impossible to do away with them. Now they cannot leave them standing for another minute—when we are poorer than we have ever been before. It is curious how at one moment no one will listen to what one has to say, and the next minute it becomes quite easy to carry a thing through both Houses of Parliament without any opposition at all.
  This, of course, is a great day for all of us who have struggled to see the accomplishment of a National Theatre in

  997
  England. We are also very gratified that a pleasant link with the London County Council has been forged and that we are to be part of their noble plan for reconditioning the South Bank of the Thames. Once again we find the same situation. All my life I have heard people lament that the South Bank of the Thames was a disgrace to an imperial city such as London. People used to come back from Paris saying how beautiful and wonderful was the lay-out of the Seine and how marvellously it has been incorporated into the city. So far as London was concerned, nothing was done in the time of its greatest wealth; it is only now that we are determined to sweep away the ugly slums on the South Bank and create a noble lay-out there. The London County Council have been very friendly to our idea from the start and the exchanges that we have made with them really mean that the London County Council has provided £185,000 as a contribution to the cost of the National Theatre.
  The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has referred to the approaches which I have made to the Government. My colleagues were not hopeful of those approaches—not as hopeful as I was myself. But I was surprised at the warm welcome I received from Mr. Dalton when I saw him about this measure. Then, almost immediately, Mr. Dalton fell into misfortune and I had to begin again with a new Chancellor of the Exchequer whose formidable austerity had been rubbed into me by every newspaper during the last five years. I imagined that he was going to be rather like that puritanical Roundhead, Prynne, who during the Commonwealth wrote a pamphlet and succeeded in getting the theatres closed during the whole of the period of Cromwell's reign. I did not find Sir Stafford Cripps in the least like that. On the contrary, I found he was just as cordial about the idea as Mr. Dalton had been. I think your Lordships will agree that it is not the sort of thing that one would have expected to have appealed to this Government.
  The theatre is essentially an individualistic profession. There are good parts and high salaries for some people, and bad parts and small salaries for others. Your Lordships will have observed the grossly unfair advantage that pretty women have over plain ones in the
  998
  theatrical profession. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, this idea has received cordial and enthusiastic response from the Government, untainted by a theoretical equalitarianism. It only shows that the Government are in much closer touch with public opinion than many people think. That is proved by the unusual debate which took place in another place, where there was a discussion of several hours and there was no opposition to this measure at all—which I have been told is an almost unprecedented event in that place.
  I share the optimistic view which the Government have of the future. This country has had a great loss of military power and of wealth. These things have passed to those two remote monsters who live to the East and West of Europe. Their way of life, though very different one from the other, has no real appeal to us. But I am convinced that Shakespeare's countrymen are about to enjoy an Athenian summer of great interest and charm. The Arts Council and the B.B.C. have created and found vast new audiences who are keen and vitally interested in all these artistic questions. It is true that they are not yet educated. I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, who has given long service and loyalty to this clause. He is terribly afraid of this expression "cultural centre," a fear which apparently is shared not only by the Lord Chancellor but also by the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury; but no one ever produces another phrase for it. The other day I was talking to a woman who lives in Battersea, where they have just made a cultural centre. She was extremely proud of the fact that her community had a cultural centre. She said, in fact, that it was going to be opened shortly by Edgar Wallace! I was not priggish enough to insinuate to her that he was not the sort of man I should have selected to open a cultural centre. I only pointed out to her that he had been dead for many years, and it was really extremely unlikely that he would be opening the centre. She said: "Oh, then, it must be Shakespeare who is coming!"
  This seems to me to show that cultural centres are necessary in some districts of England. Mr. Oliver Lyttelton and the Lord Chancellor do not reach for their

  999
  revolvers when they hear such words; they reach for their satirical witticism, which is a much more dangerous weapon in this country than Goering's revolver. It is all very well for them to do that, but I do not think they realise what an important work these centres accomplish in districts where there is enthusiasm but not sufficient education. I myself have found a universal appreciation of this movement. Those who are in contact with the new democracy know that it is alive with genius. I have perfect confidence that it is going to produce a civilised life equal both to the aristocratic life enjoyed in the eighteenth century by the great families, and to the middle-class civilised life which prevailed in the nineteenth century.
  I have no anticipation that I shall myself live to see the National Theatre built, still less to see the chain of civic theatres which will bring the drama to the starved provincial towns. But I should like to congratulate the Government upon their courage and imagination in bringing in this measure. Nearly everything that Governments do is inevitably, perhaps mercifully, forgotten. The political and economic issues about which we fight get out of date, lose their virulence and become unimportant. But what we are building to-day will stand for ever as a lasting monument to this Administration.
  6.7 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I should be sorry to strike any discordant note in the spirit of harmony which prevails at this moment, particularly as all my life I have been a great lover of the theatre. Probably I have seen as many plays and films as any member of your Lordships' House. When Mr. Oliver Lyttelton said, as he did in the debate in another place, that the object of the National Theatre was to set the highest standard for the drama, those words expressed my sentiments entirely. But this is a Bill which involves extra expenditure. It seems only fair to remind ourselves that all the bankers have recently issued their annual pronouncements. They are unanimous on one point—namely, the overwhelming necessity to ease the burden of taxation. The only way of easing the burden of taxation is to reduce expenditure. Therefore, any Bill which seeks to increase expenditure, however small it may be in comparison with the
  1000
  gigantic expenditures which are made in other directions, must surely receive a careful scrutiny. We should assure ourselves that the two theatres which are envisaged in this Bill are necessary.
  The first thing we must remember is that the expenditure on this project will by no means be confined to the £1,000,000 envisaged in this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made that clear in his speech, when he spoke of wishing to add a restaurant and to build the theatre with workshops in an area of some two and a half acres, and when he expressed the hope that prices of between 6d. and 2s. 6d. would be the highest prices paid by the spectators. Obviously, any such project would entail a heavy annual subsidy, and we must be prepared to face that. Then, in regard to this theatre, would it, in fact, be a National Theatre? That certainly was not the unanimous opinion of speakers in another place. One of the Members from the North of England said that up in Manchester they were tired of paying taxes, or their share of taxes, for projects from which only Londoners reaped the benefit. Another, from Wales, said that his idea was to have a National Theatre in Wales, and if this Bill passes he would approach the Treasury for a grant in order that his country should have its own National Theatre. A third Member, from Scotland, said exactly the same in respect of his country, and Mr. Oliver Lyttleton in his closing speech in that debate offered his services to back him up in obtaining a grant for Scotland to have its own National Theatre. Let us therefore not be under any delusion that the amount of finance involved is confined only to the not considerable sum which is asked for in this Bill.
  I wonder whether we are right in thinking that the South Bank of the Thames is an ideal place to construct this National Theatre, if indeed it is decided to construct it. If that is so, how is it that every other theatre is on the North Bank? How is it that no theatre, except Miss Baylis's effort, has ever flourished on the South Bank of the Thames? I venture to think that Miss Baylis's effort should not be taken as a precedent. She was a lady of great ability and personality, who created a vogue and who carried on her theatre—although not everybody will admit it—on the lines of presenting the

  1001
  drama in its highest standards. She did wonderful work, but she did not do such work as would be required of a National Theatre. I am very doubtful, therefore, in spite of the eloquent testimony of Lord Esher and the Lord Chancellor, whether in fact, from the long-term point of view, a site on the South Bank of the Thames will be successful.
  Am I not right in thinking that Lord Esher is also a sponsor for the creation of a highly important music centre in the area of Portman Place, which would surely be a strong competitor with a similar cultural centre on the South Bank?
  VISCOUNT ESHER: There is no proposal whatever to build a theatre in the Regent's Park area; that is merely in connection with music.
  LORD BLACKFORD: But a concert hall is to be built there, I think, and at Portland Place there will be the counter-attraction to that which it is now sought to have on the South Bank.
  Lastly, in that connection, are there not enough theatres already for the presentation of drama? In these hard times, before we commit ourselves to the construction of two new theatres, would it not be wise to make quite certain that there is a demand for a permanent National Theatre company in London? Surely it would be possible, if such a plan were considered desirable, to start with it straight away? What is the matter with the Gaiety Theatre? It has been empty for some years. It is true, that the lease on the theatre has recently been taken up by Mr. Lupino Lane, but I have no doubt that as he is not at present able to obtain a licence to repair it he would be willing to lease it for such purposes as this. It would appear to me that the Gaiety Theatre offers many advantages. It is in a good traffic centre; it is in the middle of theatreland; the road amenities round it are good, and it was run very successfully for about twenty years. If a small theatre is desired quite close why not lease the little Kingsway Theatre? I have been to many good shows at the Kingsway Theatre in my time, and I do not know why it has been neglected in the last few years. There seems to me no reason why a short lease should not be taken of that theatre in order to try out this proceeding without
  1002
  committing the country to a heavy capital expenditure.
  My Lords, this Bill deals only with the actual building, and I submit that the construction of a building is not at present advisable, for the reasons I have stated. But, surely, the more important things about a National Theatre are the play and the players. Buildings are no good without the men and women who write the plays, and those who produce and act in them. Surely, we are already doing a great deal to propagate the drama in that respect. We are, to the best of our ability, taking the drama to the people. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have read the last annual report of the Arts Council. It seems to me that the Arts Council are doing a fine job at very little expense. Their chief work in London is to subsidise the Old Vic Company. What is the Old Vic Company if it is not a National Theatre Company? For the last four years it has been producing repertory at the New Theatre, with the best actors and actresses, and with the best producers. Yet according to Mr. Benn Levy, speaking in another place—and he ought to know all about it—in only one year out of the four during which the Old Vic Company has been performing at the New Theatre has it broken even; in all the other three years it has required a subsidy from the Arts Council. Whenever I have been to the New Theatre it has always been full to capacity. If that is the position, it only shows what a grave loss would be suffered if an attempt were made to produce national drama at prices from 6d. to 2s. 6d.
  But in addition to the Old Vic Company in London, there is a small theatre called the London Mask Theatre, also subsidised by the Arts Council and carried on in the nature of a repertory theatre. It has produced one highly successful play called The Linden Tree, and two or three others of a cultural value without the same box office appeal. In addition to that, the Arts Council entirely run three repertory companies in the country, at Bristol, Coventry, and Salisbury; and they are interested in, and help the finances of, no fewer than thirty-one companies all over the country, including Scotland and Wales. I have not worked out the number of plays which were put on by those thirty-one companies during the year 1947–48 which is the year with which the

  1003
  report deals, but it is well over 150. All this has been achieved at a cost of £63,000—£56,000 being for England and £7,000 for Scotland. I see that the Lord Chancellor is shaking his head. It is true to say that the total grant to the Arts Council was £428,000, but much the greater part of that was spent on art exhibition, music, ballet and so forth. The actual expenditure on the drama was only £63,000 for this last year, and I maintain that a great achievement has been accomplished by the Arts Council at that very small expenditure.
  I am in favour of increasing those efforts because I believe that that is doing a great deal more good than would be done by erecting a building in London. Quite apart from that, however, it seems to me inconsistent that we Conservatives, who are always blaming the Government for their excessive expenditure, who are at this very moment moving in another place a vote of censure on the Government for the gigantic miscalculations of such gargantuan wasters as the Ministers of Health and Food, should in this small matter be persuaded by the eloquence of the Lord Chancellor and the attraction of the project to depart from our consistent principle—namely, that only reduction of taxation, among many other things, can save this country from the economic blizzard which will one day come upon it.
  6.20 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have little to add to what I have previously said. I was sorry to note that the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, did not much like my remarks about trade depression. I rather agree. I did not much like them myself, but I put them in to try to get over the sort of difficulties which we have just heard enunciated. However, as they obviously have not got over those difficulties, I withdraw them. Of course, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about management. It is obvious that it is necessary that the management should be in the hands of someone who is an expert and skilled manager. I hope to goodness that no Government, whatever their complexion, will be foolish enough to think that they should concern themselves with managing a theatre.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, expressed surprise that this Government
  1004
  should entertain such a project. After all—and I do not want to strike a controversial note—this Government have a very good record in these matters. There has never been a Government before which contributed something of the order of between £400,000 and £500,000 a year to the Arts Council. We believe that in these directions we are spending the taxpayers' money in a very useful way. I am afraid that I should never convince the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, but he has had his say and "got it off his chest," so to speak; and I hope that, having done that, he will be good about it in the future—indeed, I think that he will. He says that we really cannot afford this expenditure. I cannot help feeling that it was just that sort of attitude—if I may use Lord Esher's illustration—which kept those slums with us for so many years. If we had only made up our minds that we would afford it, and we had afforded it, we could have got rid of those slums years ago at about one-tenth of what it would cost now. We should have eliminated a vast amount of human misery and human suffering if we had made up our minds that we were going to afford it, and had afforded it. We should, moreover, have had a National Theatre at somewhere about the same time that Louis XIV gave France a National Theatre. It was always the "cannot afford it" attitude that stood in the way.
  I am not saying that the situation to-day is one in which we can be permitted to indulge in any wild extravagance. But I do not believe this is wild extravagance. I believe that anything which is going to contribute to the moral, spiritual and mental welfare of the people is very wise expenditure—expenditure which we not only can but ought to afford. Therefore, I disagree with the noble Lord with regard to his other suggestion. Particular theatres were mentioned. The noble Lord will realise that some of those theatres would be quite inappropriate to the project we have in mind. To play repertory in some of the theatres would, of course, be foolish. I am grateful for the reception which this Bill has received. Though I have not quite succeeded in convincing Lord Blackford, yet I think he realises there is something to be said for the project which I have brought before your Lordships.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ROAD AND STREET PLANTING
  6.24 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy with regard to road and street planting; what Department is at present dealing with this subject; whether they will reconsider their attitude towards the Roads Beautifying Association; and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I make no apology, even at this late hour, for raising this subject, because it is one of very great importance. On what is done in the next few years will largely depend the aspect of England 100, 200 or perhaps 300 years hence. We have been discussing a Bill affecting roads this afternoon. How those roads are planted, and how the lay-out is worked, is a matter of vital importance now.
  This business of planting trees alongside roads is very difficult and highly technical. It requires the most expert advice. There are a great many pitfalls. You can fall into error in many ways. You can fall into error concerning the kind of tree to plant, having regard to the particular soil or the climatic conditions. You can plant trees which will not have room to develop properly and which will be a constant source of trouble and expense. In these days of petrol restrictions, we do not have much chance of travelling about the country by motor car, but I did have the opportunity of driving along the Great West Road the other day and at one place—I believe it was somewhere in the vicinity of Ealing—I saw a most lamentable sight. The local authority has used birch trees for roadside planting. I suppose there is no lovelier tree than our native English birch, given a proper chance to develop. But, in this instance, the local authority had seen fit to plant the trees under telegraph wires. The result was that they had had to be sawn off horizontally, about twelve feet from the ground. It was a dreadful and horrible sight: a greater eyesore it would be difficult to imagine. As I say, this planting of roadside trees is a matter which requires expert advice.
  Some years ago—it was in 1928, I think—the then Minister of Transport, Lord Mount Temple, brought the Roads Beautifying Association into being. He found a man of whom think it is not too much to say that he was a man of genius, Dr. Wilfrid Fox—and he has really been the driving force of the Roads Beautifying Association. He became the Honorary Secretary of the Association and collected around him a band of people who were real experts, and who devoted a great deal of time and trouble to the work of the Association. The Association was, of course, purely voluntary—that is to say, it existed, and local authorities could either go to it or not go to it. I think the Association may be said to have done its work well because it never once lost a client. Once a public authority, whether a borough council or a county council, approached the Association they invariably continued to make use of it and became subscribers.
  We had men of real knowledge and experience, such as Lionel de Rothschild, who was Chairman of the Royal Horticultural Society, Mr. F. R. S. Balfour, Sir Arthur Hill, Mr. W. J. Bean (author of that great standard book Trees and Hardy Shrubs in the British Isles), Colonel Stern, who knows a great deal about planting in chalky soils, Mr. Cotton, who was the keeper of the herbarium at Kew and is now the President of the Linnèan Society, Mr. Gardner, Secretary of the English Forestry Association, Sir Charles Bressey, a very eminent road engineer, Lord Aberconway, who is now President of the Royal Horticultural Society, Sir Edward Salisbury, the present Director of Kew, Lord Robinson, and also representatives of the A.A., the R.A.C., the British Road Federation, representatives of Kew Gardens and (this is very important) representatives of the nursery trade, such as the Hilliers, father and son, who gave a great deal of time and trouble to the work of the Association and whose advice was of the greatest value. Not only have such gentlemen a tremendous knowledge of what to plant and where, but they also know where the right trees are available. I remember that we were once consulted by the Cumberland County Council about a windswept and spray-swept stretch of road. We recommended a particular tree for this which we thought would thrive. Mr.

  1007
  Hillier thought it was excellent, but that the combined resources of the trade could not, without some years' notice, produce one-tenth of the number of trees required. In that way the Association was able to give valuable service.
  We went on for some years on these lines, constantly increasing our circle of acquaintances among local authorities and doing more and more work, until, in 1937, we were given a grant from the Ministry of £200 a year and local authorities were urged to consult us. In 1944, when Mr. Noel-Baker was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, he invited us to formulate plans by which our powers would be considerably increased. Mr. Noel-Baker was going to suggest that we should have executive powers as well as the advisory function we were already performing. But then a change of Government took place, and all this came to an end.
  The Association (perhaps rather rashly), in order to advertise the fact that we were in existence, and that our advice was available, held a sherry party and, still more rashly, invited the Minister to it. As I watched the Association's sherry going down his throat, I almost saw the mental processes going on inside his mind. He was thinking, "This will not do at all. Here are people who know their jobs doing something for nothing. This might be of advantage to 'the boys.' It might be one of their 'rackets.'" Soon after that, out of the blue, with what I might call brutal rudeness, the Minister dismissed Dr. Fox. Dr. Fox had done a tremendous work over a period of twenty years, and had devoted his great knowledge and an enormous amount of time and energy to his job. The Minister spoke very disparagingly of the work of the Association and told us to get rid of him. He also told us that the small subsidy of £200 a year would be discontinued, and that local authorities would in future be told to come to the Ministry, which was setting up its own department to advise on road planting.
  I want to ask the noble Earl who is to reply what this service is costing. I understand that two officials are employed, at a cost of between £1,500 and £1,800 a year, and they must have their own staff—clerks, secretaries, typists, draftsmen and so on—and any of us who
  1008
  have had any experience of Government affairs realise that the cost of that increases year by year. What is being spent now and what services are being obtained? I want to know why this sudden change of attitude took place. What had the Roads Beautifying Association done to incur what seemed to be the very definite hostility of the Government? Maybe, since I was President of this Association, the Government did not like Dukes, or did they not approve of people who really knew their jobs? They certainly did not like something about the Association. When we found we had been dismissed, Dr. Fox was greatly discouraged. We felt it was no good trying to fight the Government and the Minister, so we called a meeting to wind up the Association.
  At that meeting I put it from the chair that the Association be wound up. It was unanimously rejected. And, if I remember rightly, an Amendment moved by the county surveyor of Hertfordshire and seconded by the county surveyor of Surrey, that the Association be temporarily carried on, was passed unanimously. Since that time the County Councils' Association have repeatedly asked the Minister that the Roads Beautifying Association might be kept in being, and have asked to consult that body instead of his officials. At first I thought it was a case of "a job for the boys," but I did the Government an injustice. They did not get an old retired trade unionist for the job, but gave it to a young man from Kew, in his early twenties, who had done fifteen months' training at Kew before the war and who, during the war, had something to do with sowing grass on aerodromes. This young man was put in the place of a body with the experience and accumulated wisdom of the Roads Beautifying Association. He was a brilliant young man, but he could not get anything done because he was so tied up with red tape; and after a year he resigned and went back to Kew.
  I do not know who the Government experts are now. A new advisory body was to have been set up. The noble Lord, Lord Aberconway, agreed to be chairman and we were to have some representation. From what I am told, this new body has never come into being, and, for reasons of economy, is being held in abeyance. Whom do the Government employ to give advice to local authorities? It is a

  1009
  matter of vital importance, because a mistake is not easily rectified, and pitfalls are numerous. Such trees as laburnum or flowering cherry, which can make an extraordinarily beautiful picture of an urban or suburban street, can be an absolute outrage in a bit of unspoiled English countryside. There are a great many questions of that kind, and in the combined wisdom and experience of our Association the Minister had a useful instrument which he could have utilised.
  I do not say that the Roads Beautifying Association is the best body. But I do not think a young man can possibly have the knowledge or experience which the members of that body had. I resent the way in which, after years of service, Dr. Fox was thrown aside and a young official appointed in his place. The Association's system, when approached by a local authority for advice, was to send a panel of three or four members to the spot, to go over every inch of the ground, to examine the soil, what verges there would be and how much room there would be. This panel made recommendations which went before the whole technical sub-committee, which then advised the local authority, who might take that advice or not, as they pleased. Now they have to go to an officer who cannot have the breadth of knowledge and accumulated experience which was available in the Association. I ask the Government what this service is costing and what their plans are for its future. I should rather like to hear the views of the noble Lord who sits beside me, because in fact the views of the present Government are worth about as much as Tumbledown Dick's in the closing months of 1659.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, the beauty of Great Britain has been for many years a steadily wasting asset. Societies like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England have been valiantly trying to stem the tide of waste, but it is high time that we had something more positive to increase the beauty of our main roads. The Roads Beautifying Association have been pioneers. Examples of their achievements are the Colchester by-pass, the Guildford-Godalming by-pass, the Oxford-Woodstock road, the Henley-Oxford road at Bix, the Romsey by-pass, the Woodbridge by-pass and the Leicester City road. I should like to add to the tribute already paid by the noble
  1010
  Duke to the great value of the long service of Dr. Wilfrid Fox.
  But what of the future? We are facing great developments. First, there is the construction of the new motorways, of which we have heard this afternoon. That will be undertaken by the Ministry of Transport. Then there is the improvement of trunk roads. That will be paid for by the Ministry, and the work will be carried out by the various county authorities. Other first-class roads will be the responsibility of the local authorities, but I understand that they will receive percentage grants from the Ministry of Transport. Let me ask your Lordships briefly to consider what is required under each of those headings. The great motor roads will be entirely new. There is no need in this small country for those roads to be constructed for very great speed, like the Pennsylvanian Turnpike in America. By all means let us avoid the German autobahn, which ruthlessly overrides the land forms for the sake of maximum speed. What we want is rather what the Americans call the fitted highway—the road which is adapted to the configuration of the district through which it passes. The new motor road should combine a high degree of efficiency with speed, comfort and general pleasure. The fitted highway, gently winding in response to existing forms, may be slightly longer between two given points than the inflexible autobahn, but it will be less costly, both in construction and maintenance, and will easily admit of a speed of 75 miles an hour without fatigue or boredom. Further, the cruising speed of cars along these roads will prohibit any detailed examination of specimens along the roadside. Anything like an elaborate collection of rare and interesting trees and shrubs will be out of place, except possibly at parking places and road junctions.
  I must not go into details. I hope I have said enough to illustrate the importance of obtaining the right kind of technical advice from the outset. Both as regards the siting of the roads and the roadside planting, what we really need is the advice of a good practical landscape architect. As to the plants to be chosen, the details of planting and the upkeep, what is required is the help of a small committee, including expert horticul-

  1011
  turists. These considerations also apply, with appropriate modifications, to the trunk roads and the first-class roads. A good deal of work is still desirable in connection with the trunk roads of the country. Various improvements should be considered. Why, for example, should the two carriageways always be so close together? Why should there not be, for some length at least, a break of, say, 100 feet between them, with well-designed planting which would obviate dazzle at night? I must not detain your Lordships at this late hour on further points of this sort. They are points which may well be referred to a competent landscape architect. The honorary secretary of the Institute of Landscape Architects, Miss Brenda Colvin, last year published a very interesting book under the title Land and Landscape, which some of your Lordships may have read. That book seems to me to indicate the kind of help needed in connection with the improvement of our trunk roads.
  As regards the other first-class roads, which are the responsibility of the county authorities, less planting will be required because the countryside has been less disturbed. I am glad to know that the Minister of Transport takes a keen interest in the whole subject. I should like very strongly to support the noble Duke in asking that the Committee which the Minister has in mind to form should be formed without delay. Such a Committee would naturally include representatives of the Roads Beautifying Association, of the Institute of Landscape Architects and of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I am delighted to hear that Lord Aberconway may be the chairman; no better chairman could be found. I hope this Committee will meet at once and work out for the Minister a set-up and a scheme for securing appropriate and economical treatment and upkeep of roadside planting.
  I would venture to offer two or three suggestions for the consideration of that Committee when it meets. The first is that the Minister of Transport should keep in close touch with the Institute of Landscape Architects and retain one or more landscape architects in the capacity of consultant. A good landscape architect should be employed from the outset in siting and planting these great new
  1012
  motor roads, and a good landscape architect should also be available from time to time for consultation in connection with the trunk roads and the first-class roads in the counties. Detailed work on these will be undertaken, not by the Ministry, but under the officers of the local county authorities. In addition to the advice of a landscape architect, called in as occasion requires, each county, I suggest, should have a county committee ready to co-operate with him and to supervise the carrying out of his recommendations. It should not be difficult in each county to form a small committee of local people, familiar with local conditions, who will be able to superintend the actual planting and aftercare of the plants. The committee should include experienced horticulturists, a representative of the county branch of C.P.R.E., and so on. It would certainly arouse local interest, and would give encouragement on the spot to the protection and aftercare of the planting. In some cases suitable trees and shrubs, some of which are at present in short supply, might be presented to the committee by local growers.
  Each county, I suggest, should have such a committee. All the counties differ a good deal as to their soil and climate. Cornwall, for example, should not be bracketed with Devonshire; if Cornwall should be bracketed with another area it should be with the West Coast of Scotland. Let Cornwall, Devon, and all the other counties have their own horticultural advisory committees. I need not remind your Lordships that some planting is essential—embankments and cuttings must be clothed with vegetation, if only to prevent erosion. If there is to be any planting, let it be good planting, with local knowledge. If unsuitable plants are chosen, if the top soil is removed and no provision is made for aftercare, the failure will be miserable. I had an incident brought to my notice not long ago. Certain planting was undertaken by an authority along a stretch of road. The farmer who farmed the adjacent land disapproved of what was being done. "I will plant a tree which will live," he said, "and yours will die." That actually happened; the farmer's tree did live, and the other plants died. I would urge that all the committees, whether local or central, should be small committees. We do not want twenty-five

  1013
  people to plant a few shrubs; we do not want representatives of every Government Department remotely concerned to survey the planting of every little group of trees.
  I hope, the Minister, in consultation with his new advisory Committee, will give most careful consideration to the whole question of personnel. Is a special permanent staff of the Ministry for this one purpose really necessary? The advice of a landscape architect should be readily available as required, but what is needed over and above that might be supplied, in my submission, by the new Committee working at the centre, and the county committees supervising the planting in each county. Further, if the Roads Beautifying Association, which has done such valuable pioneer work in the past, is represented on this central advisory Committee (as it certainly should be), might it not be better for it to pass its life into this new Committee rather than to continue its own separate existence? I am not at all in a position to give a categorical answer to such questions as these. I should be quite content to have them considered carefully by the Minister and his new advisory Committee, but I feel it is very important that they should be duly considered without delay.
  There is one other action I hope the Minister will take. The Ministry pays for the new motorways, and also for the trunk roads. Thus, the lay-out and planting of these roads will naturally be under the Minister's control, and I hope he will make definite provision for it. The other first-class roads are the responsibility of the county authorities, but as they are eligible for percentage grants from the Ministry, the Ministry is fully entitled to ask the county authorities to submit schemes for the beautifying of these first-class roads which are neither motorways nor trunk roads. I hope the Minister will do that. The House is very much obliged to the noble Duke for raising this important matter. It vitally affects the future attractiveness of the British landscape. I would add this thought: that the judicious expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money will confer a benefit on our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, for which I believe they will be sincerely grateful.
  6.52 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the noble Duke need not apologise for drawing the attention of the House to this important work of road planting which, as the right reverend Prelate has said, contributes so much to the beauty of the English countryside. I assure the noble Duke that my right honourable friend the Minister is keenly interested in this work of road planting, and I hope that what I have to say will convince him that as much as possible is being done at the moment.
  I should like to direct myself to the terms of the noble Duke's question, or rather to his three questions. I should like to deal first with his second question. The Ministry of Transport are the Department dealing with the road amenities to which the noble Duke has referred, and the Minister of Transport, therefore, is the responsible Minister. He takes responsibility because he is the highway authority for trunk roads, and because of the expenditure on classified roads out of the Road Fund. My right honourable friend also has general responsibility for roads and road safety. But in the exercise of his responsibility the Minister is, of course, in close touch with the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are concerned with the wider planning and amenity issues with which they deal under the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1947. The Minister of Health also comes in where the appearance of housing estates is concerned.
  I will now pass on to the first question asked by the noble Duke, when he requested the Government to say something about their policy in regard to road and street planting. Before I go on to outline this policy, I should like to emphasise the importance of distinguishing between the policy that we wish to carry out—which all people who are interested in this matter wish to carry out—and the limitations to the implementation of that policy, due to difficulties arising out of the present economic situation. The Ministry of Transport has for a long time past—and indeed the noble Duke bore witness to that in his remarks—been fully alive to the importance of providing suitable trees and shrubs, as well as grass verges, as part of the design of modern highways. This is desirable, not only to improve the appearance of

  1015
  the roads, to make them more attractive in themselves and to prevent them from clashing violently with the country landscapes through which they pass, but also from the point of view of road safety.
  The Ministers concerned have issued a number of circulars to highway and planning authorities on the different aspects of this problem of improving the appearance of roads and streets. I will not weary the noble Duke or the House by drawing attention to the details of these publications. I should like merely to point out that they demonstrate the interest and concern which this Government, and its predecessors, have felt about this matter. I would add that where my right honourable friend is directly responsible, in the case of trunk roads, he will endeavour to set an example to other highway authorities in the effective treatment of roads and in the practice of the precepts he has enjoined on local authorities. But what we can do at the present time—and I hope I shall have the noble Duke's sympathy in this matter—is, of course, severely limited by the general economic situation. The noble Duke is aware that, as a result of the reduction in highway expenditure, and of the cutting down of materials and man-power in 1947, road improvement schemes which can be undertaken at the present time are limited to those which are of vital importance. For the same reasons, severe cuts have also been made in road maintenance, and in the employment of labour for highway purposes.
  It is therefore undesirable for the time being that either the Minister or local highway authorities should embark on any large-scale scheme of road planting. My right honourable friend has reluctantly decided that expenditure from the Road Fund must be limited for the present to small schemes, mainly those which are essential for road safety. For example, there is no objection to the provision of shrubs on central margins which will prevent the risk of dazzle from the headlamps of motor vericles, or of boundary hedges for the safety of road users. I am also informed that, to meet the Ministry's future requirements on trunk roads, a contract to the value of £4,373 was signed in 1948 for the supply of plants and trees from 1951 to 1957, and that further contracts will be
  1016
  entered into, according to the scale of requirements. Naturally we cannot anticipate at this stage the full amount of the requirements that will have to be met over a long period of time. My right honourable friend particularly regrets the necessity for going slow at the moment, as he has extensive plans for the planting of trees and shrubs on trunk roads. Indeed, he had hoped, as part of the post-war programme of road construction, to demonstrate how effectively this can be done.
  May I now turn to the third of the questions asked me by the noble Duke, the question relating to the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the Roads Beautifying Association? Before the war, as the noble Duke has reminded the House, the Ministry of Transport relied almost wholly upon the advice of the Roads Beautifying Association. The Association, which was formed in 1928 as a voluntary body, worked in close touch with the Ministry of Transport and the local highway authorities, and besides publishing useful literature gave effective help and advice in the preparation of schemes throughout the country. Following the legislation of 1936, which made the Ministry of Transport the highway authority for trunk roads, the Association advised the Minister on schemes of trunk roads, and arrangements were made for an annual grant of £200 to be paid to the Association from the Road Fund for their services. The Association played their part in most of the important road planting schemes carried out in England and Wales, and the Government gratefully acknowledge the work they have done. Of course this acknowledgment applies perhaps with special emphasis to the work of Mr. Fox, the Honorary Secretary, who played such a very important part in the activities of this Committee. We are equally sensible of the valuable contribution made by the noble Duke himself, as President of the Association, and I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of my right honourable friend to thank him for what he has done.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the noble Earl going to say why, being so grateful to this great body, the Minister sacked them?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am coming to that. In Scotland much assistance has been given to the Ministry by

  1017
  the Royal Scottish Forestry Society, whose work the Minister also wishes to acknowledge. Now I am coming to the next point, which deals with what has happened recently, and what we expect will happen, in connection with the relationship between the Government and the voluntary bodies who are prepared to help. In planning his post-war policy, however, my right honourable friend—and this is due particularly to the considerable increase in the mileage of trunk roads under the Trunk Roads Act, 1946—has felt that fresh measures were required to ensure the effective carrying out, supervision and co-ordination of schemes, and to achieve the greatest economy in the supply and use of plants and trees and in their subsequent maintenance. The Roads Beautifying Association was, of course, an advisory and not an executive body. Early in 1947 my right honourable friend, therefore, instituted a new post of horticultural officer in his Department and a fully qualified horticultural expert was appointed. An assistant horticultural officer has also been appointed—
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Could we have the amount of the salaries?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That point was not mentioned in the noble Duke's Question on the Paper. I am afraid, therefore that I cannot at the moment give the figure for the salaries, though I will gladly supply it.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps it could be put in the form of an answer to a Question. It is important to compare the £200 which was the cost of this voluntary Association with the cost of the new officials, plus any other branch of this Department which has been set up. Perhaps if a non-oral Question is put down, the figure can be given.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will certainly obtain the information. The work to be done has enormously expanded since 1946, and the whole-time experts are justified on that ground, and not in the least because my right honourable friend would not have preferred to use a cheaper agent.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the noble Earl told us that owing to the need for economy, practically none of this planting was now to be done except for
  1018
  a few thousand pounds worth of trees between 1951 and 1957.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the noble Viscount has misunderstood me—but the OFFICIAL REPORT will appear to-morrow and he can read what I said. These officials have responsibility for exercising continuous supervision over the matters I have just mentioned; and as a result of these arrangements my right honourable friend was obliged, from the end of 1947, to terminate the grant made from the Road Fund to the Association. Under the new set-up of the Department it was no longer necessary for him to ask the Association for advice on the preparation of individual schemes. My right honourable friend regrets this step, because it has evidently caused considerable discouragement to the Association. But he does not feel able to reconsider his decision, as the preparation and supervision of schemes of trunk roads will henceforth be done by his Department. Nevertheless, a wide field of activity remains for the energies of the Association, and my right honourable friend is most anxious to continue to receive their co-operation.
  Many local highway authorities, especially those who do not employ their own horticultural officer, have in time past received valuable help from the Association, and will undoubtedly wish to continue to receive it. That is one function which it is hoped the Association will continue to carry out. The Association could also become a useful independent critic of the Ministry's schemes. My right honourable friend welcomes constructive, independent and honest criticism. When a more active policy becomes practicable, my right honourable friend considers that it may be desirable for him to appoint a small advisory committee of experts which he can consult from time to time on questions which are likely to arise. If he decides to do this, he hopes that the Association will join with other bodies in suggesting one or more names for the committee. I very much hope that the noble Duke and one or more of these experts may be willing to serve on this advisory committee which will help the Ministry of Transport in dealing with these matters.
  I suggest that this is quite a normal arrangement. It happens in many cases that voluntary bodies do the pioneer work

  1019
  on a part-time basis. Then the work expands by reason of legislation and the consequently greater responsibility means that the Government have to employ a whole-time State paid expert. That is not to say that the Government wish to cut out the work of the voluntary body; it means merely that the voluntary body will be expected to carry on in a different way, and will discharge other but no less useful functions. I wish to assure the noble Duke that it is my right honourable friend's most anxious desire that the activities of the Roads Beautifying Association should continue, and that he will welcome any assistance that this organisation is still willing to provide for him and, of course, for the other authorities in the country.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: Can the noble Earl give us any hope that the advisory committee is now being formed, and will soon get to work?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot go beyond my instructions, but I will certainly bring the point to the attention of my right honourable friend, and emphasise that the matter is one of very great urgency.
  7.6 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the courtesy of his reply, and the charming way in which he has given it, but I am not very satisfied with its matter. He said one thing which interests me in particular, and I have no doubt that the county councils will take note of what the noble Earl has said. Our clear impression in the Association was that local authorities were told they must not come to us but to the Ministry's officials. I am glad to hear that local authorities are not forbidden to seek advice from the Roads Beautifying Association. I think that statement will be of great value. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD ORDER, 1949
  Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments; Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table.
  House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.