Lords Sitting of 31 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  LAND AND WATER RESOURCES
  3.5 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement arising out of a point made in yesterday's debate on land and water resources initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. It will be within the recollection of the House that the noble Earl referred to the loss of land during the nine years 1939 to 1947, and quoted the average figure of 50,000 acres per annum. In my reply, I said that a more appropriate figure, and one which would afford a fairer comparison with the prewar position, would be the average loss for the years 1946 to 1948; and I quoted the figure of 30,000 acres. I have since looked into this more carefully, and I am sorry to say that I used this figure inadvertently. The figure should have been, not 30,000 acres but 38,000 acres. I should also have explained that this applies to the amount which was used for building and general constructional development. It does, however, afford a more useful comparison with the average for the twelve years preceding the war, in which the same type of development showed a loss to agriculture of 47,650 acres per annum. I regret that quite unintentionally I misled the House on this matter.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his correction, but I must make the point that these little slips would not occur if we had a regular annual return of the land taken.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, for the previous years to which the noble Earl referred the annual return for which the noble Earl is now longing was made.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether
  902
  the excellent precedent which appears to have been created by the National Government will be followed by the Labour Government?
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, may I ask if that return did include and, if it is repeated, will include the land taken by the War Office?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the figure referred only to land used for constructional and building purposes.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
1.—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER CIVIL SERVICE REMUNERATION.
The Committee considered the Report of the Committee on Higher Civil Service Remuneration and approved the application of its recommendations to the Officers of the House as and when the Government gives effect to the proposals in the Civil Service generally.
2.—GIFT TO CAEN UNIVERSITY.
The Committee authorised a payment to meet the binding, etc., of the printed records of the House of Lords that are being presented to the University of Caen.
3.—ROYAL GALLERY BOOKSTALL.
The Committee agreed to the new regulations respecting the stall for the sale of guide books, etc., in the Royal Gallery on days on which the Palace of Westminster is open to the public.
4.—GRATUITIES TO LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF CUSTODIANS.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of gratuities under the Superannuation Acts, 1909 and 1935, to the legal personal representatives of Custodians W. H. Harris and J. Smith, who died on 4th December, 1948, and 19th January, 1949, respectively.
5.—SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY.
A Report from the Library Sub-Committee that they have appointed the Viscount Simon to be a member of the Sub-Committee was read, and agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee he now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I do not think there is anything in this Report to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. I beg to move that it be approved.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTAS) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1949
3.9 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved. Through the courtesy of the noble Viscount who at the present moment leads the Apposition, I was able a week ago to give your Lordships notice that I should be moving this Motion this afternoon. I feel that your Lordships would expect from me some explanation as to why the films quota has been reduced from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent. Before I give it, may I refresh your Lordships' memories with the circumstances which surrounded the imposition of this 45 per cent. quota? The 75 per cent. import duty, which His Majesty's Government felt obliged to impose owing to the acute dollar shortage, was replaced by what is known as the Johnston-Wilson agreement, which altered that duty to an arrangement whereby 17,000,000 dollars could be sent out of the country from the earnings of American films.
Those circumstances created a position—I need not go into the reasons why—which was favourable to the production of British films. My right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, sought to give an assurance to British producers that if they seized this opportunity of establishing themselves, they would have something they had never had before, and that was a market for the films they produced. So, given an assurance by the British producers that they would make available the number of films necessary—and this I would impress upon noble Lords—my right honourable friend imposed a quota of 45 per cent. I maintain that His Majesty's Government had every right to expect that the British film producing industry would seize this opportunity of establishing itself,
904
produce the number of films which they said they were capable of doing, and make the 45 per cent. quota work.
But neither of those two things happened, and it is pertinent to ask why. It appears that there was an entire lack of confidence in the industry. Those gentlemen who used to introduce the equity capital into the film industry (known I think as the "angels") had flown; and so all through the past quota year we were faced with a position whereby, through the shortage of British films, quite a number of the cinemas in this country which were doing their level best to complete their quota were quite incapable of doing so. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for giving me prior notice of a question he is to ask, and if he will not mind my anticipating his asking me, I will give him the answer now, because it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to have the information. Of just under 5,000 cinemas in the country, 1,471 were relieved of the obligation to give 45 per cent. screen time of British films, and their quota was reduced on a sliding scale to anything from 10 to 40 per cent. A further 307 cinemas were relieved of the obligation in its entirety.
Section 4 of the Cinematograph Films Act empowers the Board of Trade to allow reduced quota percentages, and in some cases total exemption, to exhibitors who apply for relief and who satisfy certain conditions. Those conditions are, first, that each applicant must be able to show that, owing to circumstances beyond his control, two or more competing theatres in the same locality as his theatre are showing British films before his theatre can show them. Moreover, where an exhibitor is able to show at the end of a quota period that he did his best to fulfil his quota, and that he failed to do so because it was commercially impracticable for him so to do, his default under the Act would not constitute an offence. Those were the reliefs granted under the Act for the last quota year, and I should be misleading your Lordships if I gave any promise that under the new quota of 40 per cent. there will be any fewer reliefs. Those reliefs from the 45 per cent. quota brought the effective quota to 38 per cent. Now that our proposal is to reduce it to 40 per cent. the effective quota, with those same reliefs, will come down to about 33⅓ per cent.

905
There are some very strange consequences, and I might also say strange happenings, in the film world to-day. To illustrate this, I may tell your Lordships that the Films Council, which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is statutorily required to consult, were almost equally divided upon the question of whether to maintain or reduce the existing quota. The proclucers, the renters and half the trade union representatives wanted the existing 45 per cent. quota maintained; the exhibitors and the other half of the trade union representatives supported a proposal to reduce the quota to 33⅓ per cent. Noble Lords will understand the diffidence I have in mentioning the Films Council in your Lordships' House, because of the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, who is the Chairman of that body. And it was the Chairman's casting vote which swayed the report of the Council in favour of a reduction. I think I am right in saying, however (if I am not, I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, will correct me), that although he was in favour of a reduction and his casting vote swayed the recommendation of my right honourable friend, he was not necessarily in favour of a reduction to 33⅓ per cent.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before the noble Lord passes from this recital of how people voted, would he tell your Lordships what I think would carry more weight with them—namely, how the independent members of the Council voted?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Again, perhaps the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they voted in such a manner that the two sides were equally divided, and they had to have the casting vote of the Chairman.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then, if the noble Lord is uninformed at the moment, would he in the course of the debate obtain the information and tell me whether it is not a fact that the independent members were four to one in favour of 33⅓ per cent.?
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I think the figures showed that three independent members, including myself, voted for the resolution, and one voted against.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is typical of the divided opinions and counsels of the film industry, with which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is embarrassed. Also he suffers not only from a divided film industry but from a surfeit of advice from every conceivable quarter. It is volunteered by all who think they have the slightest knowledge or connection with the film industry—and they are legion—until his position is somewhat like that of the man with a drunken wife—everyone knows what to do with her except the man who has her. In face of all these difficulties and all these contrary opinions, my right honourable friend has to come to a decision.
To bring this down to a realistic basis, what are the opposing forces arguing about? For a cinema which changes its programme once a week a 45 per cent. quota means that to satisfy that quota it has to show in one year twenty-four British films. A 40 per cent. quota requires a showing of twenty-one films, a decrease of three. A 33⅓ per cent. quota requires eighteen films. So the exhibitors who wanted a 33⅓ per cent. quota differed from my right honourable friend's 40 per cent. by only three films per annum. Of course, if the cinemas change their programmes twice a week, the figure is doubled. I do not claim that the reduction in the quota of British films will affect the basic problem of this industry. It will not. It must be realised that any reduction in the quota is detrimental to our great effort to stabilise British film production.
I agree that the British film producers are not the only ones to be considered. The exhibitors must also be considered and a balance has to be held. But it is as well to realise that the only advantage of reducing this quota will be that the exhibitor will have a slightly greater freedom of choice, and the net result may be an improvement in the quality of films—a subject about which there has been a great deal of adverse criticism during recent months. After consultation with the Films Council, it has been estimated that during the quota period about eighty British first-feature films will be made available, and a 40 per cent. quota could be satisfied by the showing of sixty-three British films. The difference between that figure of sixty-three in satisfaction of

907
the quota and the approximately eighty which will be made available will be the measure of the exhibitor's freedom of choice.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Are we to understand from that that within the next year there will be eighty new British films?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There will be eighty new British films made available. Some are being made now; some have been made. Altogether, eighty will be made available for exhibition for the first time.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Old and new?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: All films which have not been previously shown. It is hoped that the reduction in the quota will be temporary, but the present position is very difficult. I made the observation before that the equity "angels" appear to have taken to their wings and flown. In general terms, it is true that the only equity capital available for the production of independent British films to date is coming from Government-sponsored sources. The National Film Finance Company, which will be displaced by the Film Finance Corporation, has prepared the ground well. It has already financed three distribution organisations and has laid plans, and will make recommendations to the Corporation, when it is set up, to finance seven different and independent producing enterprises. From this it seems reasonable to assume that in the immediate future seven British films will be under way which would not otherwise have been started.
As I said in your Lordships' House the last time we debated this matter, if my right honourable friend is satisfied that all the circumstances are there to warrant it, he will have no hesitation in going to His Majesty's Government and requesting an increase in the financial limitation of £5,000,000 at present imposed on the Film Finance Corporation. But may I repeat that the salvation of the British film industry has got to be worked out by itself? Any aid which the Government can give is purely first aid. There can be only one basis upon which a successful British film industry can be built and
908
sustained, and that is by the closest co-operation between producers, renters and exhibitors. I hope that the Portal Committee which are at present inquiring into this matter will bring forward a basis upon which that co-operative structure can be built. As we in this House know the noble Viscount so well, I have no doubt that we shall have a very constructive Report.
I would again underline the fact that all sections of this industry must co-operate. It is no good—if I may be allowed to use colloquial language—one section of the British film industry wanting to take fur coats off cinema stars and at the same time wishing to wrap up another section in cotton wool. We have got to have this co-operation because, given the chance, the British film industry can produce the finest films in the world. It has just made one which has not only won universal praise in this country but gained acceptance in America. All noble Lords who have seen Hamlet will, I think, agree with me. I am not sure that Hamlet in one of his soliloquys did not use a descriptive term which might aptly be applied to this film industry. I hope that your Lordships will agree to accept this quota, and if there is any question that it is proper for me to answer, I will gladly do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords your Lordships will be obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his exposition of a rather curious Order. He has displayed his characteristic courtesy and clarity, and I must say that on this occasion he has displayed an unusual amount of ingenuity and imagination. Ingenuity, indeed, is required to defend this Order, and he has drawn on his imagination, perhaps wisely, because I certainly could not find that his arguments were based on premises which bore any near relation to the facts. He has obviously taken to heart the maxim: Never make a mistake in your logic, the facts remain at your disposal. If I may be allowed to follow his example, I will go back a little into the history of the past, because I agree with him that it is only against the background of the past history and

909
experience of this industry that we can judge the present situation and decide what it is wise to do.
Under the Cinematograph Films Act, as the noble Lord has said, the President of the Board of Trade is empowered, by means of a Special Order approved by Parliament to fix a film quota for six months or longer. Your Lordships will remember that last June this House approved, I think with great hesitation, a quota for feature films of 45 per cent. On that occasion there was a great deal of informed criticism that that quota was too high. Indeed, I think the only person who defended it was the spokesman for the Government, Lord Chorley. Under the old Act, it had been the practice to fix a progressively advancing quota which was always lower, and was intended to be lower, than the number of films which the British industry, with the studio space at its disposal, could produce. That practice had a twofold object. In the first place, it ensured that there was an ample supply of British films to enable the exhibitors, large and small—and the small are just as important as the large—to comply with their statutory quota. In the second place, it was intended to, and did, encourage British producers to produce good films which would show not under a compulsory quota but upon merit.
That system was completely successful. Within a few years of the passage of the original Act, which I had the pleasure of piloting, British cinemas were showing nearly three times as many British films as they were compelled to show under their statutory quota. Last year, when the President of the Board of Trade fixed the quota at 45 per cent., certain criticisms were made, and I think every single point of criticism has been justified by events. It was said that it was doubtful whether British producers would produce sufficient films. We now know that they have not. It was said that even if they did produce the physical number, the quality would suffer, and that would be bad for the producers as well as for the exhibitors. I do not think there is the least doubt that that is true. Of course, some magnificent films have been made. Whether too much money was spent on, them or not, I do not know, but they were first-class films. There was nothing new in that, of course. British films always have
910
maintained a high place in quality. But I do not think it will be denied that at the other end of the scale, under this "hot-house" protection, some extraordinarily bad films were produced.
It was said that if sufficient British films were not available, the exhibitors would have to obtain exemption or relief from the Board of Trade; but it was always intended under the Act that that should not be the rule but the exception. And it was said, I think with truth, as figures have shown now, that an excessive quota would work more hardly against the independent exhibitors. Finally, it was said that an excessive quota would undermine the willing co-operation of exhibitors, on which the success of the Act must depend and on which we were able to rely for the twenty years during which the two preceding Acts were working. The Government would not have any of those arguments. They brushed them aside. They said that the 45 per cent. quota was well within the capacity of producers. It now transpires that the Board of Trade were wrong, and the critics were right. And so we have the present proposal to reduce the quota to 40 per cent. Probably nearly every member of your Lordships' House thinks that this is too high, but we are working in a difficult position—indeed, I would almost say in an impossible position. When you have a thoroughly bad proposal put before you, the natural thing to do is to reject it; but if we reject this Order, what would be the result? We should be still worse off, because the Order fixing the quota at 45 per cent. would remain. Therefore, we have to accept the 40 per cent. in order to get rid of the 45 per cent. That shows how unfortunate it is to legislate in this way—because this amounts to legislation.
This Order is presented to us at twenty-four hours' notice. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, very courteously spoke to me last week. He told me that if we did not take the Order to-day, which was the earliest day upon which we could take it and pass it, then the excessive quota of 45 per cent. would run for another six months after October. Therefore he had to bring the Order before the House to-day. The most that he could do was to inform Parliament, in answer to a Question, what the Order

911
proposed to do. If this matter is to be dealt with properly and in order, it would be much more appropriate, and in the long run much more convenient for the Board of Trade as well as all sections of the industry, if a draft order could be presented to us and debated. Then, if the opinion of Parliament was that the quota was too high, the President of the Board of Trade could take it back and make an order more in conformity with the informed opinion of the House. This is particularly a case where that might be done, because it involves no Party issues. We all want to do what is right by this industry. I think the President would serve the interests of the industry and his own Department better if he had a little less autarchy in this business and invited a little more co-operation. However, that is the position, and unless we pass this order the 45 per cent. quota goes on. If the 40 per cent. is excessive—and I shall show the House why I think it is—then all the criticisms which events have justified will apply with renewed force.
Let us see how this is likely to affect the exhibitor, because, after all, the exhibitor does matter. There is a tendency to talk as if the exhibitor was brought in only as an afterthought. Perhaps he is the most important person in this industry. He is the man who caters for the public and who suffers if the public is not satisfied, because we cannot impose a compulsory quota on cinema audiences and compel them to see films which they do not want to see! The loss falls on the cinema proprietor, and the aggregate capital invested in cinema theatres must be far greater than the aggregate capital invested in distribution and production. The good will of the exhibitor is essential.
Under the original Act the exhibitor had a double safeguard. It was most carefully worked out. First of all, his quota was a reasonable one; and secondly, there was a renter's quota—the renter being the wholesaler who distributes the films to the exhibitors. The renter's quota was always higher than the exhibitor's quota, so that the renter had a financial stake and interest in placing with the exhibitors a margin of British films in excess of the exhibitors' quotas
912
because they were good films and the exhibitors were prepared to take them on their merits. That worked very well. The renter's quota was dropped in the new Act, and I have never understood why. We were told by the Minister that it was done for a good reason; but I was never able to get at what the reason was. I think the House would be greatly interested to know the reason.
I see that there is great and growing support for a return to the renter's quota. I believe all the exhibitors are in favour of it—certainly all except those who have a dual interest and are probably more concerned in production and distribution than in exhibition, or who have a firm and sure market for their own wares. I think I am right in saying that every exhibitor who is not a tied house is anxious for a return to the renter's quota. I do not think that will be denied. I see that recently the trade unions have taken the same view. Mr. O'Brien, a Member of another place, who I understand is the General Secretary of one of the unions concerned, has been strongly advocating a return to the renter's quota. It certainly worked very well. It would probably be a wise thing, by a small piece of amending legislation which I am sure would go rapidly through both Houses, by common consent, to return to a renter's quota.
I said—and I was not the only one—that if the Government insisted on an excessive quota there would have to be a great amount of relief given to the exhibitors. I would like to remind your Lordships of what I said in the debate on June 29, 1948:
"I know I shall be told that if an exhibitor can show that he cannot fill his quota, the President of the Board of Trade may excuse him. That is not very satisfactory, though it is absolutely necessary to have that provision. If the quota is fixed so high that nearly every exhibitor comes along and claims to be excused, it means that a great burden is placed upon the Board of Trade who will be almost driven to decide it by rule of thumb. That was never the intention of Parliament when this Bill was passed. The intention of Parliament was that the application for exemption should be the exception, and not the rule; that the exhibitor should prove his case, and that each case should be decided upon its merits. If the President of the Board of Trade finds himself faced with hundreds of applications for exemption, he will not then be able to decide them on their merits and he will be driven to decide them by rule of thumb."

913
On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Chorley (he has disappeared; he is very wise) pooh-poohed my arguments and said they were all nonsense. This is what the noble Lord said:
"There is no reason to suppose that there will be wholesale exemptions such as the noble Viscount envisaged."
I said: "hundreds"; we now know that it is nearly 2,000. He continued:
"It is quite true, of course, that what might be called block exemptions, if handed out, would stultify the object of the Act. Obviously, there will be, here and there, cases in connection with the small towns, especially over the initial period, where there may be difficulties; but these can be dealt with by my honourable friend under what might be called the escape clause of the Act."
Let us see who was right. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to give us the figures, and he has given them to us today. He said there were over 4,700 cinemas. According to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, there was to be an odd case here and there. As the noble Lord has just told us, the Board of Trade have been compelled to grant relief in no fewer than 1,770 cases; 1,471, he told us, were granted from 40 per cent. to 10 per cent. relief, and 300 or more were excluded altogether, as there were not enough films for them to do anything under the Act. Was my estimate of "hundreds" so wide of the mark? Does that not show that the quota was excessive? Does it not show that the effect has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley said, to "stultify the object of the Act"?
I am sure that this quota will also prove excessive; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has not denied it. What was intended to be an exceptional escape clause is to continue. The noble Lord says: "We are going to fix a quota at 40 per cent., but we know that a large number of cinemas will have to apply for relief this year, as they did last year, and there will be so many of them that it will reduce the effective quota to 33⅓ per cent." But why should those cinemas be put to all this trouble and inconvenience; and why should you stultify the Act in this way? If 1,700 cinemas cannot fulfil this quota, why cannot there be a quota which they can fulfil? That, surely, is the sensible way of doing business. As we now know, on the Minister's own statement, that 1,700 or more will be unable to comply with this quota, I ask the Govern
914
ment to give the House in terms the assurance that those cinemas will be accorded as generous relief in the coming year as the Board of Trade have had to concede to them in the past. I sincerely hope that that undertaking will be quite unequivocally given.
What prospect is there that this quota will be fulfilled? It is surely unnecessary to argue it, because the Minister has said that in the case of these hundreds of cinemas there cannot be enough British films. The industry is in great difficulty; many studios have closed down. I see that Mr. O'Brien said last December, I think in another place:
"In the country at the present time there are about 27 studios, large and small. Of those 27 studios, 16 are closed. Another studio will be closing next January…."
In the face of that, what is the sense of fixing this quota at 40 per cent.? The noble Lord said that the President of the Board of Trade had to decide on his own, because he had such a lot of conflicting advice. It will always be found that the producers ask for a high quota and the exhibitors for a lower quota. It is perfectly natural that that should be so. If one man is a seller and another a buyer, the seller wants to get as high a price as he can and the buyer wants to buy at as low a price as he can. That happens even in a nationalised industry, except that the buyer has no chance of getting it at the lower price. That is why the independents were put on to the Films Council. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees is one. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, slurred over what was the view of the independents.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, may I intervene to say that the noble Viscount was right in his figure of four. Including myself, it was four independents in favour of the 33⅓ per cent., and one against.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Viscount is less than his usual courteous self in saying that I attempted to slur over anything. I never slur over anything in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: When the noble Lord reads his speech, I think he will see that he inadvertently gave that impression. I certainly withdraw any such suggestion. But I do say that the

915
noble Lord should have been given that information perfectly clearly by the Department. What is more, I say that that is vital information for Parliament to have in deciding this matter, because upon whose judgment would you naturally rely? Not upon the two conflicting parties, if I may so call them, but upon the judgment of the independents who are put there just because they are wholly independent and can exercise an independent and judicial opinion. We now know that so far as the independents were concerned, four of them were in favour of the 33⅓ per cent. quota and one was against. On the face of that we can say, and, indeed, we must say, that the President of the Board of Trade has completely disregarded the considered opinion of the independent members of the Film Council. I should have thought that after their recent experience the Board of Trade would be wise to fix a lower quota which would carry the good will of the exhibitors and encourage the production of good films.
I want to add one other thing. I have spoken of the importance of the co-operation of the exhibitors. There is another co-operation which is equally desirable, and that is the co-operation of the American film industry. I cannot but agree with the criticism in another place that the handling of the American industry has been singularly inept. I had a good deal to do with the American industry when I was preparing and piloting the original Bill. Quite naturally, there was opposition initially. They would much rather not have had a quota Bill at all. But there is one thing about all my discussions with them—I was always absolutely frank as to what was my intention. When it was clear that the legislation would go through and that it would be reasonable in its terms and in its administration, then, in fairness, I must say that I had a large measure of help and co-operation from the American industry.
Looking at the situation to-day, I cannot resist the conclusion that the combination of the way in which these American negotiations have been handled and the excessive quota has had, and will continue to have, two results, both of them injurious to British film production. In the first place, British films
916
are obstructed to-day in the United States. I am afraid there is no doubt about that. In the second place, American producers of films are not using their blocked sterling to produce here to anything like the extent they could. I regret that situation. I do not say that there are not faults on both sides, but the sooner it is remedied the better. What is the result? We must accept this Order because if we do not the position will be still worse. But I do hope that the Board of Trade will learn from experience and be more realistic, and if at any time they come to Parliament with revised legislation or amended Orders which are more in tune with reality, I am sure they will find Parliament only too anxious to help.
3.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a few moments in order to say something on the Scottish aspect of this Order. When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, started he began to apolise for the 40 per cent. quota he had to produce. I was under the impression that he was going on to apologise for it not being lower, because he will of course remember that on February 1 of this year he himself said:
"But the sad story is that to-day the British film industry cannot even satisfy that quota, still less exceed it in any progressive measure."
I was hoping that he was going to apologise that the new quota is to be as high as 40 per cent. because, as my noble friend Lord Swinton has said, it is quite impossible for a very large number of producers to fulfil the Order. I shall not go further into that argument because the noble Viscount has dealt with it already. I would point out that under a 40 per cent. quota, with two cinemas changing their programme twice a week—which is not uncommon in Scotland—eightyfour British first-features would be required. As the noble Lord, Cord Lucas, says, there will be eighty produced for this next year, so it is obvious from the start that a considerable number of producers will not be able even to attempt to fulfil the Order.
Your Lordships may remember that over a year ago the quota was 22½ per cent. At that time all the studios were working, and the pictures were good, because they had more time to make good pictures. This year we have had

917
seventy odd pictures made, with the result that we have had quantity before quality, and our producers have been obliged to make some very moderate pictures. When this Order came up before, I protested to your Lordships that there were films which we would be compelled to have in Scotland which were totally unsuitable for Scotland, and which were made in England for England. I have been making inquiries, and I will enumerate a few of the British films which we have been ordered to, exhibit in Scotland—I use the word "we," but I need hardly say that I have nothing whatever to do with the film business. The names are as follows: Saraband for Dead Lovers, Anna Karenina, Mine Own Executioner, London Belongs To Me, It's Hard To Be Good, Easy Money, Esther Waters and Third Time Lucky. I have no doubt they were very popular in England, but I can assure your Lordships that they were an absolute flop in Scotland. Now we have been ordered to exhibit The Bad Lord Byron and Warning To Wantons. Neither of these films has any great appeal to either the Highlands or the Lowlands of Scotland, but the Order in London has ordained that those who go to the films will have to see them.
Now let me say one word about a person who has not so far been mentioned, and that is the poor consumer. We hear a great deal about the producer and the exhibitor, but the person with whom I, for my part, am concerned is the consumer. In the country districts in Scotland, and probably in England—certainly in Scotland—the only means of entertainment is really the films. The wife of the farmer or the farm labourer goes into the local town or village to do her shopping, and her one entertainment of the week is to go to see the films. What we in Scotland like is an amusing or uplifting film—but surely Warning To Wantons would hardly be described as an uplifting film!
That is one aspect. There is another and I feel, as we all do North of the Border, very strongly about it. This Order is not to be applied in Northern Ireland. We know it is unsuitable for Scotland, but we have to take it; but Northern Ireland have been strong enough to resist this Order and be excluded from it. I should very much like
918
to know what the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing in not putting forward the Scottish case with greater cogency and ability than he has shown, so that we in Scotland might be excluded in the same way as Northern Ireland has been. Why should an Order be made for Glasgow which was not considered good enough for Belfast? I can assure your Lordships that in Scotland it is very much resented. Those of us who go to see films have to see films that we do not want. This Order is very much on the same lines as the Catering Wages Act. Your Lordships may remember that under the Catering Wages Act the smallest inn in the Orkneys, the smallest public house in the Shetlands, was put on exactly the same footing as the Ritz and the Carlton. Many prominent Labour protagonists in Scotland were equally opposed to it at the time, but we and the tourists have had to suffer under that Act. We seem to have no one who will put. Scotland's point of view as it should have been put. I hope that when next an Order of this nature is made, Scotland will be excluded in the same way as is Northern Ireland.
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, the present stringency in which the cinematograph industry finds itself has already caused a great deal of unemployment, and must have caused considerable suffering amongst technicians and others who cannot all readily be absorbed into other work. Against this background it is not surprising that some sections of the industry take the view that the present quota should not only be maintained but should even be increased. Other sections hold equally strongly that it should be reduced. I feel, therefore, that your Lordships may like me to tell you why I personally wish to see a reduction in the quota and, indeed, wish that the present Order had gone even further than it has.
There are two considerations that should always be borne in mind when considering the quota. One is that if it should, unfortunately, happen that a series of indifferent British films were made, and if it were possible by law to compel their exhibition, to do so would be the greatest possible disservice to the British film industry, because people would either give up going to see films

919
altogether or, at any rate, would give up going to see British films. Another consideration is that exhibitors should, I think, have a reasonably wide choice of films from which to select their quota, partly because by no means every film is a success and partly because different films appeal to audiences in different parts of the country.
The present quota of 45 per cent.—one has to face the fact—followed a recommendation by the Films Council last year that it should be 50 per cent. I think there were two reasons for that recommendation. One was that, owing to illness and various other causes, few independent members of the Council were able to be present when the quota was under discussion—I do not mean to imply that they would necessarily all have voted for a lower figure, but I think that certainly many of them would have done so. The other consideration was that the recommendation was based on the producers' estimate of the number of films that could fairly be ranked as first-feature films which would be produced during the year. If their estimate had been realised, there would have been a wide enough choice for exhibitors; but in fact an appreciably smaller number of pictures were produced, and by no means all of them were successful box office propositions.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not mean to say that, compared with the total number of pictures produced in every country, the percentage of poor or mediocre British films is greater than that of indifferent American films. I do not think that is the case. But so many more American films are produced every year that exhibitors have a far wider choice when they are selecting them; and for some reason that I have never quite fathomed, audiences here seem to stand a bad American film more easily than a bad British film—and I think that that is even truer in Scotland. There have, of course, been one or two outstanding films made here during the last year. There was Hamlet which has been widely acclaimed, even, I think, by Hollywood, as the best film of the year. There was The Red Shoes and a number of other films that challenge comparison with anything from America. If anything like half of the films produced here had
920
been of that quality, I doubt whether we should have had this crisis with which we are faced to-day. It is a fact, I fear, that many British films produced this year have been very disappointing.
I feel now, as I felt at the time, that last year we tried to go too far and too fast, and that the present quantity can be produced only at the expense of quality. I think the experience of this past year goes to show that the industry is not at present geared to support a high quota. When it is so geared, then our problems will largely disappear. There may be no need for a quota, because British films will sell themselves—and surely that must be our long-term aim: that British films should be able to stand on their own feet without need of protection. I am convinced that at present we should not try to set too high a numerical target, and that we should concentrate on quality. I do not think that the solution of our troubles lies in producing more quickly or more cheaply British films of the average type made this year. I do not feel the same difficulty that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, feels about granting relief to a number of cinemas. If we set a lower target, so that all cinemas can comply with it, then the ones that show a much higher percentage tend to take the quota as being the maximum and not the minimum and, therefore, show far less than they could and should show. My view is that in this industry, in which competition varies so greatly, a sliding scale, as we have at present, is the fairest and best system. What I object to most is to have, not relief beforehand but defaults afterwards.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I make this clear? I have not the least objection to setting out in an Act of Parliament or an Order that the quota for certain houses in large places (whatever is the right way of describing them) shall be x per cent., and the quota for other houses shall be y per cent. I think that would be most reasonable. What I object to is passing a law which says to every cinema: "You shall show this and this," making them show cause why they should not.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: To have the whole sliding scale set out in an Act

921
would be extremely difficult, because conditions vary so tremendously. What will happen each year under the new procedure is that a sub-committee of the Films Council, composed of trade members, will go with a fine comb through the whole of the cinemas in the country and make their recommendations as to what the relief should be. That will have to be done every year for changing conditions. Therefore, it would be difficult to lay them all down in an Act of Parliament. The relief for the cinemas that change their programmes twice a week is difficult, because those cinemas cannot have relief if they belong to the large circuits or if they cannot show that there is competition from two other theatres in the same locality. So some hundreds of those cinemas which cannot be given relief under Section 4 of the Act will have to default, and it will be impossible in most of those cases to prosecute. I think that it is bad legislation to have hundreds of defaults. I hope that the Government may find it possible at sonic stage to introduce amending legislation on that point.
I do not feel that there is any easy or short way out of our difficulties. I wish I could think so. How far we succeed in surmounting them will depend largely on the work of the Film Finance Corporation. That is a most important body which will have to work with speed, vigour and imagination. They are bound to make some mistakes. Unfortunately, none of us of this world can find winners all the time, and in the cinema industry it is easy to pick losers. I hope that the Film Finance Corporation do make mistakes. They cannot be too much criticised because, if they do not make mistakes, they cannot make anything. I think that their success will depend largely upon their finding new talent, more script writers, more artists and more directors, because those will never be in too great supply in the cinema industry. I do not think it is a bad thing that the Corporation should have come into being with the sellers' market coming to an end; I believe their work will be based on a firmer foundation now that the public are much more critical about the film which they go to see. I am sure that we shall all wish the Corporation the very best of luck in their most difficult work. Those are the reasons for which I support this Order.
4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I think this debate has been about as gloomy a debate as we have heard in your Lordships' House for a long time, and the words which fell from the noble Earl who has just sat down did nothing to relieve the gloom which surrounds the present situation of the film industry. It is a very sad state of affairs. The new Act was passed only last year, and our hopes were all high that it would herald the revival of the British film industry, but on almost the first occasion on which it is possible to change the Order, we are asked to reduce the quota by 5 per cent. Even so, we are not certain by exactly what percentage we are reducing the quota, because the noble Lord opposite, in moving the adoption of the Order, told us that the Board of Trade exemptions would reduce the quota to 33⅓ per cent., which was one of the figures originally recommended. It looks very much as if those exemptions will have to be used in even greater measure during the period for which this Order will be in force. If that is so, then we are rapidly approaching a position where the figures in the Order placed before Parliament have relatively little meaning. At the moment, however, the terms of the Order give us only the choice of either approving the figure of 45 per cent., which everybody knows from experience has proved too high, or taking the figure of 40 per cent. which, as the noble Lord opposite has said, will probably be 33⅓ per cent., and may even be something different. That is not a cheerful choice to place before your Lordships.
But, assuming that this Order is confirmed and we have no other choice, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, how much nearer shall we be to establishing a better state of affairs in the cinema industry? Not very much nearer, I think, on the face of it. Whatever benefit may result from the Film Finance Corporation, it will not go all the way. The noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, had a good word to say for that Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, told us that they had already started to finance films. But there is a danger that the Film Finance Corporation will provide too easy money and, if they provide too easy money, we shall still be as far as ever we were from raising the standard of British films to

923
the point where they can look after themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, told us that the "angels" had fled, and the Film Finance Corporation have apparently stepped in where the angels are fearing to tread. I wonder. But, so far as I understand the position, there has never been any real difficulty in getting capital for a film which was likely to make a profit. The difficulty came when the "angels" retreated because it was found that, what with one thing and another, the rising costs of production and the uncertainty of the estimates which film producers and film directors gave, no one really knew whether the money he was investing in a film was going to make a profit or result in a loss. The traditions of the film producing industry are not strong enough to enable the investor to tell that. The mere fact of turning on the tap of Government money will not by itself alter that state of affairs. I think we ought to be clear about that.
On the other hand, Government money plus an artificially high quota may easily result in our continuing for the next six months in a fools' paradise, where British films are not better and not more economically produced, where unemployment in the film industry may be reduced, but artificially reduced, and where, sooner or later, someone in another place—for instance the Select Committee on National Expenditure—may in years to come point out that a great deal of money has been spent by the Film Finance Corporation and that we are still no nearer than we were to the point which we all wish to reach. We want the film industry to be economically sound, to stand on its own feet and to attract ordinary capital by its own merits. The real judge of that position is not the producer or the exhibitor, but the ordinary man or woman who goes to the pictures; they are the people who decide. If we are to have a sound film industry, it is impossible in the long run for anybody like the Board of Trade, the producers, the renters, the exhibitors or anybody else to try and keep the public content with something they do not want. In theory we might reach a state of affairs where the film industry was in such a bad condition that there was nothing to show the public but documentaries sponsored by the Ministry of Food and paid for by the
924
Film Finance Corporation. Thank goodness we are a long way from that!
But let me return for a moment to the question of employment. Unemployment in the film industry is very bad, and I feel sorry for those people who have to deal with labour conditions in that industry. They must be having a bad time, and I only hope that they have not made it rather worse for themselves than it might have been by indulging in too many restrictive practices. I mention that matter because I think that, if any progress is to be made, this period of six months during which the Order will be in force must be used by everybody concerned in a real overhaul of the conditions of production by the two cinema unions, by the producers and by everybody else, not excepting the film directors. I venture to think that one of the troubles in the film industry at present is that there are not enough film directors and people of that sort sufficiently expert and experienced to be able to produce the films up to the numbers required by this quota at a figure which will show a profit, whether it is to the Finance Corporation or to the private investor.
My Lords, let us leave it there. If we pass this Order, let us see that the time is used in a real effort by all concerned to put the film industry on a proper economic basis. If we fail in our efforts in the face of the Americans, then no doubt a change will have to be made and we shall have to go back to the original plan—not a satisfactory one from every point of view but producing a much better state of affairs than the present—when films were made, not in spite of the Americans but sometimes because of them.
4.23 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, through the helpful contribution to the debate by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two, as he answered all the main points made by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, regarding the eighty-four films for Scotland. I would, however, add one point: that the relief which the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, said could not be given, can be given by the last section, which relates

925
to cases where it is not commercially practicable to fulfil the quota.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I ask the noble Lord one question: Has there ever been a prosecution under this Order?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know of one. Although I expected the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to say almost what he did say, I think he was not quite fair to my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade. The 45 per cent. quota was fixed by the Board of Trade after consultation with the producers and, as the noble Earl has said, after they had said that they could produce the films. So if we erred we erred in good company, and the reason for our erring was because we adopted the principle of consulting the industry and taking their advice. The noble Viscount asked: Why not have a draft Order? If a draft Order were prepared putting down proposals for an industry like the film industry, controversy would rage even more than it has done when no draft Order has been produced, and the whole thing would be be-devilled. I am sure that the noble Viscount and I, in our experience of industry and its troubles, have been accustomed to dealing with businesses where logic has more meaning than it has in the film industry. The noble Viscount should really take to heart what the noble Earl said. The fixing of quotas is a very difficult task. To take care of the circuits in the big towns a high quota must be fixed, and there is only one way to see that that is done. These circuits control a third of the seating capacity of the country in all the large towns, and when a quota is fixed to take care of that we have to make certain that the quota is not injurious to the smaller man. That is why relief is proposed—not by the escape clause but by Section 4 of the Act of 1948.
The noble Viscount wanted me to give an undertaking. I should have thought that what I have already said was a sufficient undertaking—namely, that I do not anticipate that there will be any fewer reservations in toto. I can give the noble Viscount only this undertaking: that every case will be reviewed on its merit. The noble Viscount also asked me about the renter's quota. The renter's quota was given up at the behest of the pro
926
ducers of the country because they thought that any films produced under compulsion would lose merit. It is impossible to reintroduce the renter's quota because of our obligations under the Geneva Agreement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is really most important and has never before been said—that another of the things of which Geneva has deprived us is the power to restore the renter's quota. I think this is the first time that that has been said in Parliament.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My instructions are that the Geneva Agreement on tariffs and trade would prevent us from reimposing the renter's quota.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: For how long? This is very important. We have had many discussions on Geneva, and to my knowledge—the Leader of the House knows that august document nearly as well as I do—this is the first time that it has ever been announced in either House of Parliament that by the Geneva Convention we have fettered our power to continue the renter's quota. If the noble Lord cannot say now, perhaps if I put down a Question I could be told specifically whether we are bound; if so, by what instrument; in what circumstances we were so bound, and for how long we will remain bound.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. If he will do that, I will endeavour to obtain fuller instructions. I do not want, and I am sure the noble Viscount does not want, to raise the whole position of the American Dollar Agreement, but in passing I think I can say that if that were done away with (and here I think the noble Viscount will agree with me) it would not do the British producer any good. I will take great notice of what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has said. I will look at it and examine it. I think I had better leave the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, to the tender mercies of my noble friend Lord Morrison—who perhaps will undertake to produce a realistic film, such as, London Belongs to Scotland—and beg all noble Lords who come from Scotland to see the film A Warning to Wantons. If they did that I am sure it would give us a very great deal of pleasure!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ROADS BILL
4.28 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Schemes for provision of special roads]:
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage of this Bill we on this side sought to insert in the Schedule of the Bill certain words to make it clear that all who might be affected by any scheme in connection with the construction of special roads, and who might desire to object, should be fully informed about the scheme in ample time. From the Government Benches it was contended that that would not be feasible, and that the Amendment, if accepted, would interfere with planning. We therefore withdrew the Amendment, and I am now moving the deletion of Clause 1 in the hope that we may hear from the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill to-day exactly how the Ministry of Transport proceed in making these schemes, and orders under schemes, and how the interests of the parties likely to be affected are safeguarded by the procedure adopted by the Ministry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has explained why at this late stage he has moved this Amendment. I am pleased to respond to what he has said by making a considered statement on the procedure for making a scheme authorising the provision of a special road, which will be made under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Before a proposed scheme can be formulated, a great deal of preparatory work will be necessary, not only to determine the most suitable line of the proposed road but also to integrate the road proposals with town planning and schemes for industrial development. In the course of this work there will necessarily be close and early consultation with the various authorities and interests, private or public, in order to reconcile conflicting interests and generally to iron
928
out, so far as possible, difficulties which would otherwise lead to objections and delay to the scheme at a later stage. Apart, therefore, from visual evidence of publication of discussions at council meetings, and the activities of surveying parties, which will portend that the proposals are in the air, a general idea of what is intended will be known to local interests long before proposals are ready for the scheme stage. It is in fact the usual practice as regards the Ministry's roads to sound the reaction of land owners whose property may be affected by trunk road proposals.
The first step in the formal procedure for making a scheme is the publication of a notice in at least one local newspaper (and usually two) circulating in the neighbourhood where the special road will be situated. The notice must also be published in the London Gazette, or the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according to the location of the road. The notice will state the general effect of the scheme and give an address where a copy of the draft scheme, and a plan showing the proposed centre line of the road, can be inspected during the following three months by anyone interested. The notice will also specify a period of three months for lodging objections with the Minister. Copies of the published notice, with copies of the draft scheme and plan, must be sent to the local authorities through whose areas the special road will run, and also, where the scheme provides for the construction of a bridge over or tunnel under navigable waters, to any navigation authority, catchment board or river board concerned.
If objection is made by any of the authorities on whom notice is served within the period prescribed, and is not withdrawn, the Minister must hold a local inquiry. In other cases where objections are made and not withdrawn, the Minister is given discretion to dispense with a local inquiry if he is satisfied that, in the circumstances of the case, an inquiry is unnecessary. For trunk road order purposes it is the Department's practice to hold an inquiry wherever substantial objections are made. After considering any objections and the result of any inquiry which is held, the Minister may make or confirm (as the case may be) the scheme, either with or without modifications. This procedure is the same as that laid down for the making of trunk road

929
orders. Experience over the past twelve years gives every reason to think that it works satisfactorily in practice, and that it brings proposals to the notice of all persons and bodies likely to wish to object. The inquiry proceedings are of an informal nature and the Minister's representatives are there to clarify points of detail, so far as they can at that stage.
In any event, however, details of proposed works for side road junctions with the special road, and alterations to side roads, will form the subject of a separate order under Clause 3 for the making of which the same procedure as set out above, as regards newspaper notices, service of notice on local authorities, navigation authorities and so on, and the lodging of objections and the holding of inquiries, must be followed. Interested persons can ascertain fairly closely the land which will be required for the scheme by inspecting the plan showing the centre line of the road and by asking questions at the inquiry. The procedure for acquiring the land, however, is separate and self-contained. If compulsory acquisition is necessary, the procedure of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, must be followed: this provides for the service of notices on all owners and tenants of the land, for the lodging of objections and the holding of a public inquiry if objections are not withdrawn. If the terms of purchase, including accommodation works, cannot be agreed, the matter is referable to arbitration under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. I hope that that statement will be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and complete statement of the procedure which is followed. I am particularly glad to notice that it is the practice of the Ministry of Transport to have informal consultation with land owners before a scheme is propounded. I hope that they will always be extremely careful to consult small as well as great land owners because often those with a small interest in land have not such good facilities for informing themselves of these matters as have those with larger estates. Later on during this Report stage, my noble friend Lord Llewellin will be moving an Amendment which lays down that the proposed centre line of the
930
road should be included in a scheme. When we couple that Amendment with the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has just made, I think we may feel reasonably well satisfied that the interests of those affected by a scheme will be adequately safeguarded. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Restriction on laying of mains, etc., in special roads
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the powers conferred on statutory undertakers by or under any enactment to lay down or erect any apparatus on, under or over any land shall not be exercisable in relation to any land comprised in the route of a special road except with the consent of the special road authority:
Provided that the consent of the special road authority shall not be required under this section for the laying down or erection by statutory undertakers of any apparatus by way of renewal of any apparatus for the time being vested in or belonging to them.
(5) Where the consent of a special road authority is required under this section in respect of apparatus to be laid down or erected otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, and the special road authority are a local highway authority, the statutory undertakers may appeal to the Minister against any refusal of that consent or any condition subject to which that consent is granted, and the Minister may make such order as he thinks fit.
4.38 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words after "special road" (where that term first occurs) and to insert:
"but statutory undertakers may lay down or erect by way of renewal any apparatus laid down or erected before the special road was constructed or became a special road and for the time being vested in or belonging to them.
Provided that in the case of apparatus so laid down or erected by way of renewal—

(a) along the line of route of the special road the apparatus shall be laid down or erected elsewhere than ender or on the carriageway and shall be placed as far distant as practicable from the centre line of the special road; and

(b) across the route of the special road the apparatus shall except where laid down or erected on a bridge be placed in a subway or culvert under the special road."

The noble Earl said: The purpose of the two Amendments which appear in my name on the Marshalled List at this

931
point is quite simple. We want to avoid the possibility of the road surface of these new special roads being pulled up by public undertakers in order to get pipes or cables, or whatever it may be, across the roads. These roads will probably be used more by heavy commercial traffic than by any other sort of traffic. We know that the cost of these roads will work out at something like £160,000 a mile. They will require extremely complicated and very special foundations, probably involving the use of reinforced concrete. The deeper the foundations go, the more breaking-up will take place, and the more difficult it will be to repair the surface.
I am pleading with the Government to say that when a public undertaking want to take a pipe or main across a road, they must take it either over or under. I can see no reason why an electric cable cannot be taken across a special road on a special bridge or, if it be a pipe, taken under the road by a special culvert. I cannot see any reason why the Government cannot accept this Amendment or, if this does not quite fit, something on these lines. Alternatively will they give the House a definite assurance that the Minister is not going to allow any undertaking to dig up the road surface to lay cables or drains? Digging up a special road would damage it to such an extent that we would never get it right afterwards.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out from the first ("road") to the end of line 17, and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I have an Amendment later on dealing with exactly the same point, but in rather a different way, perhaps it would be convenient if we could discuss the two Amendments together and then, if it were thought that my solution was the better one, I would formally move my Amendment. I think we are all agreed that we want the minimum of pipes and cables under the carriageways of the special roads. We all deplore the sight of one statutory undertaking after another, coming along and digging up a bit of a road, so that when one has relaid the surface another comes along and digs it up again. It is alarming to think how much these special roads are to cost. When one thinks of the cost of the railways, even
932
with stations, it is difficult to realise that the special roads will cost even more.
We are all agreed that the last thing we want is to have pipes or mains going down the length of the road. That is the silliest place to put them. In some cases it will be necessary for them to go across the road; we cannot have a special road from London to Bristol without some undertakings having to lay drains or cables across the road. The special road cannot be a concrete "curtain," preventing anything going from one side to the other. I do not like the wording of the Bill as drafted because in some cases, though possibly not many, the special road authority might be the undertaker responsible for these public utilities. In my view, the decision about the laying of pipes or mains should not be in the same hands. Therefore, my Amendment says that in no case shall this be done except with the consent of the Minister. It will be the Minister who is paying out most of the money and it is in his interest not to waste that money. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the surface of a road is never the same once it has been dug up: it is always a patched-up affair. If my Amendment were acceptable to the Government, and we were told that only in the most exceptional cases would the Minister allow the apparatus of any statutory undertakers to run down the length of the road, and would allow their apparatus to cross it only when absolutely necessary—and then in a culvert or some other special means—and if we were assured that the decision would rest in the Minister's hands, I think that would go a long way to meet the point raised from this side of the House, upon which I believe we are all agreed.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the impression I have after this brief discussion is that there is very little between any of us in this matter. The only difference between the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has great experience of this kind of thing, and myself, is that he is not prepared to make any allowance for exceptional cases. He wants to close the door altogether. I do not know whether the noble Earl visualises a time when there might be a Minister of Transport who would be careless and allow these roads to be broken up, but I think he will agree that we are all very much opposed to that, not only because it is a stupid thing to do, but because it is extremely expensive. I gladly

933
give an assurance that it will normally be the practice to insist that mains be put on the verges of special roads, if they must go along the road at all. The situation might well arise, however, when the circumstances leave no alternative to laying a main in the carriageway and when the importance of the apparatus and the balance of the national advantage compel exceptional departure from the general practice. The point I want to make is that there are exceptional cases.
Between the points of view of the noble Earl and myself, representing the Government, is interposed the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, the effect of which is that a local special road authority cannot themselves give permission for the laying of mains under the carriageway or motorway and that such permission must come from the Minister. That meets the point which the noble Earl has just argued, that there might be a local authority who were in effect giving themselves permission to break up a roadway. The noble Lord's Amendment has been considered by the Government, and I am authorised to say (I say it now, though the noble Lord has not yet moved his Amendment, in the hope that it will meet the point of the noble Earl, Lord Howe) that if the noble Earl is willing to withdraw his Amendment, when Lord Llewellin moves his Amendment I will accept it on behalf of the Government.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for his answer, before I say anything specifically in reply to it I should like to draw attention to the fact that he has just made one announcement, for the first time. He has said that in special circumstances it might be necessary to take the apparatus of a public undertaking along a special road. Up to now, the discussion has been mainly about the works of public undertakers crossing the road. I am in a position of considerable difficulty in this matter. I feel certain that the present Ministry of Transport, and the staff of that Ministry, would rigidly set their face against anything of the sort. But the trouble is that Ministers come and go. We have now the right honourable gentleman Mr. Barnes, but to-morrow we might have (who shall I say?) Lord Llewellin or Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. I do not know whether I
934
could trust them! I give that merely as an illustration of what I mean. Is it really necessary to allow these works to go along the road, as well as across it? The replies up to now have always been that where they go along the road they will be on the strip at the side.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I think the answer to that is, first, that no Minister of Transport will ever be quite suitable to the noble Earl. The principle which I have indicated would be abandoned only in a most exceptional case, as I endeavoured to say. The noble Earl, by his Amendment, shuts and locks the door and throws the key in the canal so that nobody can find it and reopen the door! The Government view is that we must be prepared at some time for an exceptional case, and that this must be provided for. If we incorporate the noble Earl's Amendment it will be impossible to deal with the exceptional case.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I understand that reply, although I regret it very much. I am very nervous about this point. The noble Lord must remember that the reply he has just given in the case of Clause 1 gives public, undertakers ample opportunity to know the exact line of a route, to object to it and to make all their proposals known in regard to it. Therefore, there will be little enough excuse for anything of this sort happening. However, having regard to what the noble Lord has said in relation to Lord Llewellin's Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw mine.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I desire to move in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Marshalled List the next Amendment in my name.
After the words "subway under" I would like to add "or bridge over." The purpose of this Amendment is the same as that of the previous one—to take the apparatus either over or under the road. There is no difficulty where it is an electric main or a water main. It can as easily be taken over a special road as under it in a culvert. I do not know whether the noble Lord has anything to say on this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 32, and insert—
"(2) Statutory undertakers may with the consent of the special road authority lay down or erect apparatus along a line crossing the route of the special road provided that the apparatus is placed in a culvert or subway under or bridge over the special road and such consent may be given subject to conditions other than a condition requiring any payment to be made by the undertakers to the special road authority in respect of the exercise of the powers to the exercise of which the consent is given and that authority shall not withhold their consent under this section unless there are special reasons for doing so."
LORD MORRISON: My Lords I can add very little to what I have already said, because this covers a similar point to the Amendment with which we have just dealt. As a general rule, the object and the intention is not to allow the roadway to be broken up for this purpose. The mains need not necessarily go in a culvert or a subway under the road. For example, electricity cables might be slung on pylons over the road, and pipes might be carried over on bridges carrying side roads, where conveniently situated, or by an individual pipe bridge. In the vast generality of cases means will be found of taking mains across special roads suitable to the type of main, and to the circumstances of the case without interfering with the carriageway, but we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of there being an exceptional case. It is the same point.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (5) to leave out all words from and including "the statutory undertakers" down to "and", and to insert:
"then—

(a) if the apparatus is to be laid under the carriageway of the road, the authority shall not give their consent except with the approval of the Minister:

(b) if the consent of the authority is refused (otherwise than in consequence of the withholding of the Minister's approval under the foregoing paragraph) or is granted subject to conditions (other than conditions approved by the Minister under that paragraph) the statutory undertakers may appeal to the Minister."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already given my reasons for this Amendment, and I formally beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out from ("authority") to ("and") in line 7 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, it may save time if I say that the Government accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment and the next are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("Scotland") insert ("in subsection (4)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, after ("of") insert ("that"); leave out ("(4)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Additional powers of acquiring land for special roads]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert in its place:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the power of a special road authority to acquire land under section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, shall include power to acquire any land which in the opinion of the authority is required—

(a) for the improvement of an existing road which is included in the route of the special road but has not been transferred to the authority by an order under this Act;

(b) for the purposes of any order made in relation to the special road under section three of this Act; or

(c) for the provision of service stations or other buildings or facilities to be used in connection with the construction of the special road or the use or maintenance thereof.

(2) A special road authority shall not be enabled by virtue of this section to acquire otherwise than by agreement any land lying more than two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the special road or, where the land is required for the construction, improvement or alteration of any other road, from the middle of that other road."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this rather long Amendment arises from the fact that in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, promised to consider the possibility of including an Amendment which would lay down that land beyond a certain distance from the centre of the road could not be acquired, even for the purposes of subsection (1) (b) of this clause. The effect of this Amendment is that, while retaining the purposes for

937
which the land acquisition powers of subsection (1) (a) and (1) (b) may be used, it is made clear that the clause does not enable a special road authority to acquire, except by agreement, any land situated more than 220 yards from the middle of the special road, or, where the land is required for the construction or alteration of a side road, more than 220 yards from the middle of the side road. Land required for service stations and so on must also be within 220 yards from the middle of the special road, unless it is acquired by agreement.
The land acquisition powers of a special road authority will therefore differ from those of a highway authority for ordinary highway purposes under Section 13 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, only in two respects. First, land can be acquired for the construction or alteration of roads for which another authority is at the moment the highway authority—normally, of course, a highway authority can acquire land only for their own roads. Secondly, land can be acquired for service stations, and so on. I hope that noble Lords opposite will be prepared to agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord opposite, and to his friends, for having found it possible to modify the very wide powers in the Bill as originally drafted and as it came to us from another place.
It seems to us reasonable that a limit should be set to the powers of acquisition of land by the Minister of Transport. Theoretically, at any rate, as the Bill was drafted he had powers to widen the North Road from the East Coast to the West Coast. We gratefully accept this Amendment, and tender our thanks to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("as aforesaid by") and insert ("by virtue of this section by a special road authority being").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.59 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved to omit Clause 10. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recollect that in our former discussions on this Bill we on this side of the House were rather concerned about the provision of accommodation works so that land, and particularly agricultural land, should not be permanently adversely affected to a greater degree than was entirely necessary. It was conceded, I think, by the Government that a special road—a motorway—must form an almost impenetrable barrier across the countryside, because of the restrictions placed upon the user of the road by all except a limited class of vehicles. Therefore, in our view, it is highly important that adequate accommodation works should be provided in order, for example, that farmers may pass their implements as freely as possible front one side of the road to the other by means of bridges or creeps. The Government might pay adequate compensation to the owner or tenant of the land for the disturbance, but we were afraid that there might be neglect to provide adequate accommodation works, and thus the land, and particularly agricultural production, would permanently suffer. We attempted to limit that defect by moving in Committee an Amendment, which, however, did not prove acceptable to the Government. Therefore, at this stage I formally move the deletion of this clause, so that the Government may have an opportunity of stating their views upon the matter and informing us of the policy of the Ministry of Transport particularly in relation to compensation and accommodation works. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I hope the very brief statement that I shall make will meet with the approval of the noble Lord opposite. It is the desire of the Minister of Transport that improvement of the highway system should be as little as possible at the expense of agricultural land, amenities or other land valuable to the community. To this end it is an established routine that there should be, in connection with proposals for highway improvement, especially improvement of the trunk road system, close consultation between the Ministry

939
of Transport and the Ministries of Agriculture and of Town and Country Planning, both regionally and centrally. Moreover, it is the practice of the Ministry of Transport, when negotiating the acquisition of land, to agree to meet more or less of the total compensation due to owner or tenant in the form of such accommodation works—cattle creeps, drainage, fencing and so on—as may be reasonably required to minimise or eliminate any severance or injurious affection caused to the owner or tenant by the purchase of his land for road works. Negotiations with owners on this point have, in the Ministry's experience, nearly always proved satisfactory, and it is the experience of the Ministry that owners or tenants very rarely resort to the arbitration procedure on compensation that is available to them. There is no intention of departing from present practice in these respects, and, so far as can be foreseen, what has proved in the past a satisfactory policy for trunk roads will continue to be the best policy for trunk roads and for special roads and, as such, will continue to be followed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for that statement. What one has always to bear in mind is that if a farm is being severed and a lump sum in money is paid as compensation for that severance, that money may be used for any purpose. Such a payment may not be so effective for the continued proper cultivation of the land as making a proper creep or bridge, so that the farm buildings built for an acreage of that size may still cover that area of land, and there may be access from one side to another. I was glad to hear that the policy of the Ministry, in all practical cases, is to try and satisfy that claim for severance by providing those accommodation works. I think we all realise that that is the right way of doing it.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Provisions as to use of special roads
(2) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the use of special roads, and such regulations may, in particular—
940

(a) regulate the manner in which and the conditions subject to which such roads may be used by traffic of the classes authorised in that behalf by a scheme under section one of this Act;

(b) authorise, or enable such authority as may be specified in the regulations to authorise, the use of such roads, on occasion or in emergency or for the purpose of crossing, or for the purpose of securing access to premises abutting on or adjacent to the roads, by traffic other than such traffic as aforesaid, or relax or enable any such authority as aforesaid to relax any prohibition or restriction imposed by the regulations.

EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2) (b) after the first "roads" to insert:
"except roads authorised to be used by traffic of Class I or Class II or both of those classes."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed in order that the special roads authorised by this Bill shall not be made more dangerous by having anything in the nature of level crossings for the use of general road traffic. As we see it, under Clause 12 (2) (b) it would be possible to permit the use of level crossings by all classes of traffic, including horse drawn vehicles and cattle. Many attempts have been made during previous stages of the Bill to try to clarify this position, but so far nothing very definite has been said. On the Committee stage, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, speaking for the Government, said:
"I can obtain more information about the sort of provision which highway authorities have in mind for inclusion in a regulation that they might make for this purpose, and that information I will obtain before the next stage of the Bill."
We want to know a little more about it. If level crossings for ordinary traffic are envisaged by this Bill, we think they will be just as dangerous as they would be on a railway, and just as much a nuisance in the general hold-up of traffic. In fact, they would very largely nullify the value of a special road. We hope that the Government will be able to tell us what they have in mind. If they do not mean to have level crossings for ordinary traffic, then there is no need for my Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, after ("roads") insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, first of all, may I tell the noble Earl why it is impossible to accept this Amendment? The reason is that it is too sweeping. As we are old friends, the noble Earl will forgive me for saying that, because he probably knows more about the motor industry and motor driving than most of us in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl may have heard the question which I have often heard: "How do you tell a good motor driver?" The answer is: "By the way in which he handles an emergency." Similarly, I would ask, "How do you know that an Act of Parliament is a good Act?" The answer is: "By the way in which it can be applied in an emergency."
Under the noble Earl's Amendment, the Act could not apply in an emergency at all. His proposal would make it impossible in any circumstances to divert other traffic on to the special road. The noble Earl knows that there may be exceptional circumstances—the road may be flooded. There may be a number of other uses which can be included in the words "on occasion." On occasion there may be a visit by a member of the Royal Family, and it may be necessary to divert the traffic. If this Amendment were accepted, it would be quite impossible to meet these exceptional emergencies which would arise. So far as I understand the Bill—and I have come into the discussions only during the later stages—at certain points it may be necessary to have what the noble Earl calls a crossing, in order to provide in exceptional cases an opportunity for people to cross. The noble Earl has to look ahead and realise that these motor roads may cover areas where the population is not very dense. It would be extraordinary, for instance, in the County of Sutherland, where the population is eight per square mile, if, because one person wanted to cross the road once a week to visit the grocers, we had to make a tunnel or a bridge to enable him to get across the road. It is because the noble Earl's Amendment would close the door entirely to these exceptional circumstances that I am unable to accept it.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I can quite see that, in special circumstances, side roads may be banned to some organisation which says, "Mosley shall not pass," and they may have a battle over it. In
942
that case, it may be necessary to divert ordinary traffic on to special roads. When the noble Lord asks us to go to Sutherland and envisage a special road going all round Sutherland and the North of Scotland, is he really serious? As I understand it, the enormous expense of constructing these special roads will be justified only if it is possible to use them for heavy commercial traffic, and plenty of it. In those cases I am certain that they will pay their way.
But the noble Lord's reply raises in my mind a much more serious question. Are the Government really serious about the safety of the highway, or are they not? If they are serious, and particularly in regard to these special roads, they will see to it that neither pedestrian crossings nor crossings for ordinary traffic are allowed on them. What I suggest is that where a crossing has to be made, it should be taken either over the road or under it by some fly-over or fly-under junction. To have ordinary crossings for pedestrians and traffic will be to invite disaster, and there will be many casualties because the traffic will, be moving at a very high speed. The more exceptional the circumstances, the more will be the danger. I beg the noble Lord to consider the question of public safety. If people are to be allowed to emerge from a gap in the hedge or something of that kind, the next demand would be for some form of lights or other signals, and the whole idea of the special road would be nullified at once. Surely the noble Lord can give us a more practical answer than he has done so far. I do not regard it as being a good answer from the point of view of public safety, and I ask him to give the matter further consideration.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. The noble Lord's Amendment refers to the bringing of slow-moving traffic on to the roads, and his speech dealt with pedestrians. It will be a general rule that bridges or tunnels will be supplied for pedestrians. But, as I have said before, the Government have a duty to make provision in purely exceptional cases, and the same thing applies to this slow-moving traffic. There may be cases in which persons or slow-moving vehicles are obliged to come on to the road; there may be a fire at a petrol

943
station, and an old-fashioned hand-propelled fire engine has to be brought on the road to deal with it. Under the noble Lord's Amendment this could not be done without breaking the law. The same thing applies to any road repair vehicle that may come on to the road to assist a vehicle that has broken down. These are the exceptional cases, and I must emphasise again that the Government desire to cover only exceptional cases which might arise.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord very much for having said what he has, but I regard his reply as most unsatisfactory. However, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.13 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2) (b), to omit "on occasion or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this Amendment in order that the Government may have an opportunity of explaining precisely what they mean by the words "on occasion or." According to my dictionary the word "occasion" means "in case of need; as opportunity offers; from time to time"; and each of those definitions envisages a different type of situation. So far as this Bill is concerned the occasion may differ; it may be children going to school, or a farmer going to market, or cows being driven, or a doctor taking a short cut to save time, or a shopkeeper on his daily round. If the noble Lord can give us an idea what he means by the words I have mentioned, I shall not—if his answer is satisfactory—press my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, leave out ("on occasion or").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, one of the purposes which Clause 12 (2) (b) is intended to cover is the use of a special road by vehicles not included in the authorised classes of traffic, which must occasionally use the road for road repair and maintenance purposes or for the repair of statutory undertakers' apparatus along the road. It may also be necessary to allow unauthorised traffic to use part of the special road on some rare or special occasions when the side roads are temporarily not available, for example,
944
during a Royal visit. If the Amendment were made, these intentions would be defeated, and, therefore, I am unable to accept it.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Amendments of law relating to trunk roads]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2) to omit "lying more than two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the trunk road." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the next two Amendments are to bring Clause 14 (2) into line with the Amendment to Clause 10, page 11, line 6, which imposes a 220-yard limit on the land acquisition powers given by Clause 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 19, leave out from ("land") to ("which") in line 21.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 26, at end insert:
"Provided that the Minister shall not be enabled by virtue of this section to acquire otherwise than by agreement any land lying more than two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the trunk road or, where the land is required for the construction, improvement or alteration of any other road, from the middle of that other road."—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Supplementary provisions as to procedure]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Regulations made under this section shall provide for securing that the centre line of the special road authorised by any scheme under section one of this Act shall be indicated on a map on such scale as may be prescribed by the regulations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley moved an Amendment to the First Schedule which would have required the Ministry to give considerable information in regard to the proposed road at the Inquiry stage. I think it has been agreed between us that

945
some of the information that he asked for would not have been available by the time we were ready to have the Inquiry—if there is to be one—under the First Schedule of this Bill. However, it seems to me that there certainly ought to be in the Bill a requirement that the centre line of the special road should be indicated on a map of a reasonable scale. Under the First Schedule of the Bill, a man has a right, if he wishes—as, indeed, have county and other authorities—to ask for the lines of the road to be deflected for some particular reason. It will help those people very much if they can at the outset know where the centre line is going to be. The Ministry must presumably have the information at the Inquiry stage, or else the special road authority will have it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, at end insert the proposed subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment, and to add that in practice this map will be appended to the draft scheme which paragraph I (b) of the First Schedule requires to be made available for inspection.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Financial provisions
19.—(1) There shall be defrayed out of the Road Fund—

(a) all expenses incurred by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury under this Act in the construction, maintenance, repair or improvement of roads;

(b) any sums required by the Minister for making advances in respect of special roads under section eight of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909;

(c) such other expenses of the Minister under this Act (not being administrative expenses) as may be determined by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury.

EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that where the expense of the construction or improvement of a special road to be incurred by the Minister under paragraph (a) of this subsection and to be defrayed out of the Road Fund exceeds an estimated amount of £100,000 one-half of the sum approved by the Treasury for that purpose under that paragraph shall be raised by bor
946
rowing on the security of the Road Fund and the approval of the Treasury to such borrowing shall be deemed to be sufficient authority for the expenditure by the Minister of the money so borrowed without further or other approval by the Treasury."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a point that I dealt with on Committee stage. In reply, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that he would draw the Minister's attention to it and would give me an answer on Report stage. As the position stands at the moment, as I think is clear, the Minister has no power to borrow for the purposes of road construction. Therefore, some such wording as I have submitted in my Amendment would be required in order to empower the Minister to raise any portion of the amount. The reason why I put this point forward is probably obvious to your Lordships. Nothing is more pathetic than to see road works started and then stopped. A good instance of that, of which I am sure everybody must be aware, was the Western Avenue, which got a certain way, and then took another fifteen to twenty years before the work was completed. During all that time, the preliminary work which had been undertaken was, of course, deteriorating. Another instance, perhaps also known to your Lordships, is close to the village of Hand Cross where the work is still incomplete. There is another instance of the same sort on the Great North Road, not far from Catterick. There are plenty of these instances up and down the country.
I submit that, wherever road work is started and is not brought to completion, it means that the whole construction of the road is uneconomic and is not being considered on a business-like basis. Where work is started upon one of these special roads, even if money becomes tight, provided that the construction is partially financed by loan it will be possible to go ahead with the work on a reduced scale until money becomes available once more. I am certain that that is the way in which any business firm would approach it. I feel sure that the bulk of local authorities would wish to approach it in the same way. I hope that the noble Lord will give me one small crumb of comfort. He has just given the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, something out of the bag; perhaps he may try to give me a little too! I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I can promise the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that before the proceedings on this Bill are over, he will get great comfort; but not on this Amendment. The effect of his Amendment would be that in the event of an emergency of any kind arising—for example, an economic blizzard striking this country, as happened in 1931; or in the event of war breaking out, or any first-class emergency occurring—everything else would be handicapped, hampered and held up, but motor roads, upon which the noble Earl, as we all know, is so keen, would still continue to be constructed. Obviously, that would be an impossible position, whatever Government might be in power. If something happened in the world which made it necessary for drastic changes to be effected, it would be unreasonable to expect that cuts and stoppages would be made in everything except motor roads. For that reason, the Government are unable to see why they should treat motor roads in an exceptional way and allow them to proceed to completion while other capital works, some of which might be of even greater national importance, had to be halted. It is for that reason that I regret we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Earl has had an unlucky afternoon up to now, but I think I shall be able to oblige him in a moment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, put in the way that the noble Lord has put it, my Amendment is absurd; but he has taken a very extreme illustration of that sort of thing. As to my crumb of comfort, what I would ask him is this. Can be not tell me that it will be the policy of the Department, so far as can be foreseen, with all special circumstances for the moment put on one side, not to leave one of these special roads in the condition in which the Western Avenue was left for so long—it does not matter whether a Tory Government or a Socialist Government are in power—to ensure that such roads are not left in an incomplete state, suffering deterioration the whole time? If the noble Lord could give me some assurance like that, I should be most grateful.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, any assurance that I could give would not be
948
of much value. The assurance will have to be given by the electors generally.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I would not be content with that. I may tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the Western Avenue was not deteriorating at all during those years. It had a perfectly good surface, but it did not go the whole way; that was the only difficulty. It was of the greatest possible use to me because it went just as far as my constituency—and no farther! Therefore, it was not largely used by other traffic. In those ways, I found it a most convenient road. On the other hand, we all agree that there were difficulties about finishing the road at that time, but I think that everybody would be at one with the noble Earl in saying that one ought not to start a road unless it was intended to finish it.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule [Orders under Trunk Roads Act, 1946, to be treated as schemes under this Act]:
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is where I pay my humble tribute and offer my congratulation to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. This Amendment ought not to be down in my name at all, but in his. This and the next three Amendments that I shall move are similar to those which were withdrawn on Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the understanding that Government Amendments to cover the point would be made on Report stage. The noble Earl's Amendments, as he had them, were incorrectly located. The Amendments add popular names to the official descriptions of the roads in the Third Schedule. The names adopted are those suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, except that "Haysgate to Crick" is used instead of "Chepstow to Crick." The latter description is misleading, since the road will not start near Chepstow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 18, column 2, at end insert ("(Stevenage By-pass, County of Hertford)").—(Lord Morrison.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord very much for what he has said, and for the way he has met me in this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 21, column 2, at end insert ("(Severn Bridge, Counties of Gloucester and Monmouth)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this again is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 31, column 2, at end insert ("(Haysgate to Crick, County of Monmouth)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 34, column 2, at end insert ("(Newport By-pass, County of Monmouth)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.29 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WORCESTER GAS ORDER, 1949
Report from the special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that they have received and considered a Report from the Minister or Fuel and Power upon the Order; that a Petition against the Order has been presented by the Worcester Corporation; that they have heard the parties thereon; that they have considered an addition agreed by the Minister of Fuel and Power for the protection of the Worcester Corporation and
950
recommend its adoption to the House; and that having considered the points referred to in subsection (6) of Standing Order 216 they are of opinion that there ought not to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

OXFORD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1949
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that they have received and considered a Report from the Minister of Fuel and Power upon the Order; that Petitions against the Order have been presented by the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and the Oxford Corporation; that they have heard the parties thereon; and that having considered the points referred to in subsection (6) of Standing Order 216 they consider that the Order raises an important question of policy and principle, and they are of opinion that there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee: Read and agreed to.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Special Order—namely:

V. Allenby,

L. Saltoun,

L. Faringdon,

L. Amulree,

L. Kershaw (Chairman):

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.