Lords Sitting of 31 January 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BRIGHTON EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
DARTMOUTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
DEE AND CLWYD RIVER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.

IMPORT OF POULTRY
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to prohibit the import of poultry from countries where fowl pest is endemic]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the importation of live poultry from countries where fowl pest is prevalent is already prohibited. The importation of poultry carcases from such countries is allowed in only a few cases where special control measures have been established, and the distribution of the carcases in this country is restricted to certain large urban areas. These special steps were taken,
76
both in this country and abroad, so as to minimise the risks of introducing fowl pest while allowing a valuable addition to our poultry supplies. The question of a further restriction on imports raises many important issues and is being carefully considered in the light of the present spread of fowl pest and of the meat situation.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask if any steps have been taken to control the import of poultry, either tinned or otherwise, to the American Air Force in this country? Because it is notable that the pest started in the Worlington and Mildenhall area where the swill from the Lakenheath Aerodrome is distributed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we think there is no direct or conclusive evidence that the source of this disease has been in the American camp, but, in order to avoid any possible risk in the future, we have, with the consent of the American authorities, arranged for all waste foodstuffs from American camps to be sterilised before they can be used as feeding-stuffs for animals.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if His Majesty's Government have made such an arrangement as regards American camps as the noble Earl has just outlined, might not some arrangement be made as regards the urban districts into which the poultry carcases can still be imported?

EDUCATION OF COLONIAL STUDENTS
2.38 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what progress has been made in recent years to provide university standards of education to students from the Colonies, and what is the nature of the subjects such students must study who hold scholarships in this country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD OGMORE): My Lords, since the

77
end of the war new university colleges have been established in the West Indies and in West Africa. In East Africa the existing college has been raised to university college status. In Malaya a university has been formed from the fusion of two existing colleges and further grants have been given to the universities of Hong Kong and Malta. To supplement these facilities in the Colonies scholarships are granted both from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote and from Colonial Government resources to enable students from the Colonies to study at universities and other centres of higher education in this country. At present there are 1,448 of these scholars in addition to 3,285 private students. Scholarships are awarded primarily for studies which will be of most benefit to the Colonial territories concerned. The numbers in the four largest categories were: Engineering, 193; Medicine, 177; Teacher Training, 150; and Arts, 137.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how many of these students are studying agriculture? Before he answers, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House? I have put this Question down because before Christmas I made some remarks based upon information made by a distinguished journalist, an ex-Member of the other place and also a broadcaster, who wrote in a national newspaper that the greater proportion of these people were studying law in this country. I made some little research on my own and I thought the matter might be of such interest that your Lordships might like the exact information. If your Lordships will allow me to do so, I wish to express my regret—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD CALVERLEY: I was asking the indulgence of your Lordships' House.
LORD OGMORE: In answer to the noble Lord, there are at present in this country sixty-five students from the Colonies studying agriculture. In addition, there are a number of students in the colleges of East and West Africa, and special training in agriculture also takes place at the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad.

SEARCH FOR SCONE STONE
2.40 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many policemen have been employed trying to find the Scone Stone, and what is the approximate cost to the taxpayer.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, inquiries connected with the search for the Scone Stone have been spread over a number of police forces and have largely been undertaken in conjunction with normal police duties. In the circumstances, I regret that it is not possible to assess the cost of these inquiries to the taxpayer or to distinguish the number of policemen involved.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, is it not a fact that a considerable sum of money is being spent and that many policemen are being occupied in this search? Will His Majesty's Government consider offering an amnesty to the thieves and making a present of the Stone to the University of Glasgow, for the Lord Rector to sit on it?

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
2.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to move to resolve, That this House approves in principle the proposal to make regulations governing the use of pedestrian crossings, in accordance with the Government Statement made in this House on November 28 last. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper has been put down to fulfil an undertaking that I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when in November last I made a statement upon the proposed new regulations regarding pedestrian crossings, and in order that, before we finally decide upon these regulations and lay them before Parliament, we can have the benefit of the advice and guidance of your Lordships. I intend to be very brief and will explain now the main points of the new proposals. Then with the leave of the House I will try to answer any questions that your Lordships may wish to raise.
The principal change that we propose is to omit from the regulations any reference to the rights and duties of pedestrians and drivers respectively at crossings where traffic is controlled by light signals or police officers. I hope I may say this respectfully, but your Lordships' House is the cause of all the trouble, because sitting in its judicial capacity it delivered a judgment which has made the law upon this subject rather difficult to understand —at least from the layman's point of view —and it is a little confused. We therefore propose to rely upon the lights themselves, which give a large measure of protection to the pedestrian, as well as to the vehicle. We propose to deal with controlled crossings in the Highway Code, where we think we can deal with them better, and to lay down a treaty of good pedestrianship, if I may so call it, for the guidance of pedestrians. I will come back to the position of the Highway Code in a moment.
We propose to retain studs at the intersections where there are traffic lights, but these studs will have no other purpose than to give guidance to the pedestrians that that is a safer place to cross than any other. On the uncontrolled crossings, where pedestrians would have precedence over all traffic, we propose after very lengthy research by the experts, to adopt what is known as the "zebra" crossing. This will be a black and white striped crossing, which research has shown is far better for the vehicle driver and also the pedestrian. The pedestrian at those crossings will have a precedence, except when a police officer takes control, and then the precedence of the pedestrian will cease. We have not yet decided as to the best method, if any, of lighting such crossings, and that is a matter upon which I would value any expression of opinion from your Lordships. Those are the two main proposals. We hope to be able substantially to reduce the number of pedestrian crossings. As I told your Lordships when I made my statement, there are approximately 35,000 crossings, and we feel that this multiplicity has not been conducive to respect by pedestrians.
That, my Lords, is really the substance of the new regulations. We propose to put into the Highway Code something to the following effect. We propose to substitute for paragraph 19 of the existing Code these words:
80
"Except at light signals, where they are marked just with studs, pedestrian crossings are marked with alternate black and white stripes and an orange globe mounted on a black and white post, and can readily be seen. You have a prior right of way over striped crossings unless traffic over them is being controlled by a Police Officer. Don't use this right unreasonably. Remember that vehicles cannot stop as quickly as you can. Give the traffic a chance and cross only when you can see that it is safe.
When crossing at a road intersection look out for traffic turning the corner. At traffic signals or Police-controlled intersections watch the traffic as well as the signals and cross only when you can do so safely. Do not cross at traffic signals when they show green or amber to traffic coming across your path. Wait until they show red to the traffic. If there is a crossing marked with two parallel lines of studs keep between the studs."
The other alteration concerns drivers and riders, and follows paragraph 37 of the existing Highway Code. This is the new wording we propose:
"Except at light signals, where they are marked just with studs, pedestrian crossings are marked with alternate black and white stripes and an orange globe mounted on a black and white post, and can readily be seen. Pedestrians on these striped crossings have the right of way unless the traffic is for the time being controlled by a Police Officer. Even then you should carefully respect the safety and convenience of pedestrians on the crossing.
Similarly, although pedestrians have no precedence on crossings at road junctions where traffic is controlled by Police or light signals, you should treat them with respect. If anyone is already crossing the road when you receive the signals to go ahead, do not interfere with his passage. If you are turning right or left, look out for the pedestrian round the corner who is crossing in front of traffic held up by a signal and give way to him."
May I say one further word? I may be asked why we do not make it a statutory obligation for the pedestrian to honour traffic lights in exactly the same way as does the vehicle driver. We believe that it would be impossible to enforce such a rule. I think your Lordships will appreciate that fact from one simple example. If it were made compulsory for the pedestrian to cross the road only when the light was in his favour, and not to cross when it was not in his favour, all he would have to do would be to step one yard away and he would be outside the law. If crossings, instead of being, as now, about ten feet wide, were made twenty feet wide, he would only have to step twenty-one feet away to be outside. This would be an absolutely impossible situation. Also I

81
think your Lordships would agree that we could make only one universal law, and it would seem to be rather ridiculous to make pedestrians honour traffic lights in the middle of the night, when there is no traffic about, or in the country where there are traffic lights but no traffic in certain hours. So we have come to the conclusion that it is far better to try and deal with this matter in the Highway Code.
My final word on the Highway Code is this: that if we attempted to give legal effect to the Code, we should have to re-write it. It would cease to be a Highway Code and would become regulations, and there are so many things in the Highway Code that could not be enforced by law. Your Lordships know, for example, that we set out in the Highway Code what signals should be given. Are we to compel all road users by Statute to give signals of their intention to turn this way or that way on any road at any time, whether it is in a built-up area or whether it is in the heart of the country? If so, how are wo going to enforce it? It has been a very great disappointment to my right honourable friend, and to all those connected with the Ministry of Transport, that the Highway Code has not received more support from the benches and the courts of the country. We feel that if that is altered in the future, the guidance we give now on these controlled crossings, where we have taken away the precedence of the pedestrian, together with the liability for not exercising due care and attention (which is in the present law and can be enforced) will ensure greater safety and be far better for everyone concerned. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves in principle the proposal to make regulations governing the use of pedestrian crossings in accordance with the Government Statement made in this House on November 28 last.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this discussion reflects a somewhat novel but, I think your Lordships will agree, very acceptable procedure, for it gives the House an opportunity to consider, as it were almost informally, the purpose and content of regulations before they are formally presented to us for
82
scrutiny. That advantage is enhanced if we remember the somewhat rigid system whereby Parliament is unable to make any alteration, even textual, in regulations once they are laid on the Table. It is perhaps not attributing too much merit to this House to say that it may even be that the Minister considers that he can derive benefit from the accumulated experience of the House in these matters, and do so at a stage when it is still open to him to put the results of that experience to profitable account.
I do not propose to go into the minutiæ of the lay-out of crossings, which is no doubt necessarily embodied in these regulations with almost the meticulous precision of dress regulations issued from the Lord Chamberlain's department. My main and, indeed, my almost exclusive concern is with the preliminary and predominant question whether the rights and duties alike of motorist and of pedestrian should be incorporated in regulations or should merely be set out in the Highway Code. That, of course, is no mere question of convenience of procedure, but one of actual determination of policy; for if the former course is taken, then any breach of the regulations can be visited by the penalties; of the law, whereas if the second course be taken a breach of the Code can be signalised only by, at best, a reproof. I should personally very much hesitate to advocate any system which meant merely that the public was to be harassed by a mutiplicity of trivial prosecutions. None the less, in this particular case my personal view is that the public has over the past years had every chance of reforming its homicidal or suicidal habits, and that it has profited singularly little from the opportunities given to it. Far too often as we go about London we can see at lightcontrolled crossings, and especially where two roads intersect, motorists who, when the light changes, accelerate so vigorously that pedestrians on the crossing at the further intersection are obliged to run for their lives; and equally far too often we see in similar conditions pedestrians who seem to have no regard for the fact that motorists have a claim to obey the light signal to go, and who continue to saunter across the road as nonchalantly as if they were taking a stroll along an unfrequented country lane.
There is, of course, the ancillary problem of what is called the filtering vehicle;

83
the vehicle which, quite legitimately, because the light is in its favour, comes round a corner and, by so doing, comes on to a crossing upon which pedestrians are just as legitimately walking, because in their turn the lights are in their favour. I wonder whether that difficulty could not to some extent be obviated by a more extensive use of the "Cross Now" signal on lights, of which we have examples, for instance, at a very busy corner by St. Martin's-in-the-Fields and another at the junction of Berkeley Street and Piccadilly. I suppose the interposition of an additional signal means some slight delay and consequent hold-up of traffic, but surely, if it can be advantageously done at such busy London crossings as those— there is a long experience behind it now— there are many other crossings at which it could equally be done. I sometimes wonder to what vital purpose the one or two minutes are put by people who protest so indignantly that they have lost one or two minutes on their journey.
I have noticed in previous debates on this subject that mention of the Alness Committee causes an almost imperceptible shudder to pass over the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but the words have now been mentioned and perhaps, I can go on without fear of further painful consequences, to say that ever since I was a member of that body I have been watching very closely happenings on the road, and I think your Lordships will find that I have not drawn a picture which is in any way exaggerated. If you think I have, I would only respectfully counsel you to take a leisurely and observant walk up, for example, Oxford Street at any busy time of the week. I do not doubt that, as a result, you will find that between motorists and pedestrians there is too often no such spirit of co-operation as public interest and self-interest dictate, but rather a spirit of retaliation calculated to add physical injury to mental insult. It is a curious phenomenon, and it might even be worth investigation by psychologists, that the resentment and contempt towards pedestrians felt by a pedestrian momentarily elevated to a car is equalled only by the similar feelings towards motorists experienced by an habitual motorist suddenly degraded to his feet. I cannot persuade myself that the cure for this trouble is the mere inclusion amongst the graceful courtesies
84
of the Highway Code of a code of correct conduct at crossings.
It is true that one's behaviour in violation of the Highway Code can be used as evidence in a subsequent action for damages for injuries caused by negligence. And, no doubt, it is often most helpful to executors. At the same time, with all apology to my friends of the legal profession, it seems to me preferable to forestall the infliction of those injuries, and if long trial and persistent error have proved— as I believe they have—that more drastic action is necessary, then, very regretfully, I am strongly of the opinion that any flagrant abuse of crossings ought to be subject to prosecution and, if proved, to the imposition of a suitable penalty. But if, as I hope will be the case, it is ultimately decided to include these provisions in the regulations, and not in the Highway Code, I would suggest that, before the regulations come into force, there should be interposed a period of supervision by what we have been accustomed to call "courtesy cops," who should be charged to watch a number of the more notorious crossings with the idea of bringing home to a too casual public the unpleasant and expensive consequences which are likely to attach in future to their continued breaches of regulations which are devised solely in their interest.
I imagine that I shall be told that to insist on detection of offences of this kind is only to add an insupportable burden to the work of an already overworked and undermanned police force. But, after all, the same argument could be applied to the enforcement of any set of regulations—to the observance of the thirtymile limit in built-up areas, or to any one of a number of other regulations. Are we to scrap them all, or are we going to do our best to observe those which are considered necessary in the public interest? I cannot help thinking that the police might be more usefully employed on the supervision of some of these crossings than in the detection of very minor parking offences, to which, in present conditions, so much of their time seems to be devoted. Naturally, it would not be possible to exercise a constant watch upon all crossings, but it would surely be possible to pick out certain well-known "black spots," and vary the choice from day to day, so that the public never quite knew when they would be under observation.

85
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke just now of the difficulty which had been created by a decision of your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity. But, after all, the Supreme Court of Appeal, as any other court in this country, only interprets existing law. It neither makes new law nor amends law. And laws in this country are not made by the Medes and Persians, but by the Lords and Commons. It should not be beyond the capacity of a Government Department to produce a measure which would put the position right. It is for the Ministry to make up their mind what is, the right balance to strike between the duties and obligations of the pedestrian and the motorist. And until the Ministry have made up their mind on that matter, all this discussion is largely in the air.
Yesterday's debate at least showed that we were conscious of the existence of the problem, and I must say that although towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made some reference to a vague, almost mythical, possibility of legislation, when he came down to saying that legislation might be introduced in the course of time, that statement struck a somewhat melancholy and discouraging note; because, apart from everything else, it seemed to indicate that the Ministry of Transport were not alive to their responsibilities to the public in this urgent matter. It is a good many years now since the Alness Committee met. It is no secret—in fact, we put it in our Report—that we were far from being impressed by the attitude of Ministry of Transport officials who gave evidence before us at that time. It is rather sad to detect something of the same climite of bewildered impotence afflicting the Ministry to-day.
The noble Lord also made some reference to the difficulties of persuading benches to inflict adequate penalties. May I say this to him? When you are dealing with light-controlled crossings, you are dealing, for the most part, with London and big cities, because that is where the majority of such crossings are situated. In London and the big cities you have for the most part Metropolitan magistrates or stipendiaries, rather than benches of lay magistrates, dealing with cases of this kind, and from experienced magistrates such as they are, you are likely to see a much more appropriate and
86
consistent scale of punishment than that obtained from a bench of lay magistrates. That seems to me to be another reason why these matters should be dealt with in the regulations.
Then the noble Lord painted an obvious picture of the difficulty of the situation in the country where Mere are traffic lights but no traffic. So far as I am concerned, I would raise no objection if these regulations were made applicable only to builtup areas. That would to a large extent get over that undoubted difficulty, because the last thing we want is to make regulations which we are unable to enforce or the enforcement of which merely makes us ridiculous. But if the regulations applied only to built-up areas, it seems to me that that would to a large extent obviate that difficulty.
I agree with the noble Lord that at the present moment there is a superfluity of uncontrolled crossings and that they act merely as an incitement to uncontrolled persons. If he proposes to abolish a number of them, I am sure that course will be received with general accord by your Lordships. Like other controls, they are effective only if the public are prepared to obey the rules, and the more of them there are, the less the public are anxious to pay heed to them, however much they may be devised for their own benefit.
The Minister desires to paint these crossings in black and white stripes. I do not imagine that that design will seriously outrage the æsthetic sensibilities either of the Fine Art Commission or of the public, but I have a recollection that some years before the war a departmental committee of the Ministry of Transport was commissioned to investigate the relative visibility of various combinations of colours. It is true that that was directed to signs rather than to road surfaces, but presumably the same considerations would, in general, apply. If my recollection is correct, that committee came down strongly in favour, not of black and white, but of black and yellow, and it may be worth while casting a thought back to the findings of that committee and seeing what were the con-siderations which led them to come to their conclusion.
The noble Lord spoke about the lighting of these crossings. I think your Lordships will all agree that they should be lit in some way, though rather as a sign than from the point of view of actual illumination. By that I mean Mat it seems right

87
that motorists and pedestrians should be made aware from a reasonable distance of where a crossing is situated; but it is much less desirable that motorists should be confronted and distracted by long stretches of comparative darkness with floodlit strips running across them. The obvious solution of that problem seems to me at first sight the insertion in the Belisha beacon of the Barnes bulb. There I leave the matter for others with more expert knowledge than I possess to take it up, only reiterating my strong feeling that this is no time for mere exhortation or procrastination, but most essentially a time for action.
3.14 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, on inquiry at the Printed Paper Office I was unable to obtain a draft of these proposed regulations; therefore it was rather difficult to find out what line the debate was going to take. However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He said there were 35,000 pedestrian crossings. Did he mean that that was the number for the British Isles, or just for England and Wales? The noble Lord asked for the opinion of members of your Lordships' House on the subject of lights. I disagree with what has been said on this subject by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. He advocated that these crossings should not be lit up with an illuminant. Speaking generally, I agree with him, but on the other hand there are special crossings where the effect of lighting might be to induce pedestrians to use them.
I refer in particular to a point which most of your Lordships know very well —the crossing at Charing Cross Station about rush hour. There is at that time a seething mass of humanity, and how the police at that point manage to shepherd all the people across the road, and at the same time control the traffic crossing the line of humans going to the station, baffles one's imagination. But they do it somehow. If such a crossing were well lit up, by lights shining down on to it, and had illuminated "cross now" signs, I am sure that it would be an inducement for people to use the crossing. That sort of crossing is to be found at many places in the big cities and towns of the British Isles, at points where
88
everybody is trying to get to a station. I feel that these crossings should be lit in some way to draw the attention of pedestrians to them. With regard to the illumination of Belisha Beacons with the "blonde bulb"—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The "Barnes bulb."
EARL HOWE: "Barnes bulb"—I am sorry, I thought it was something quite different. I see that in the Interim Report of the Committee on Road Safety, 1944, one of the recommendations was that pedestrian crossings should be illuminated at night. Yesterday a great deal was said about what had been recommended and had not been done. Here is another recommendation made no less than six years ago; and still nothing seems to have happened. I was on the Public Safety Committee of the Ministry of Transport when the Belisha Beacons were invented, and I remember being taken down Euston Road, with other members of the Committee, to have a look at the beacons, to see what we thought of them. The first remark made by practically everyone was: "Why are they not lit? How are people to see them at night if they are not." There is an additional danger in the background of lights behind the Belisha Beacons when they are lit, but I do not think that is any reason why the beacons should not be lit. The problem is an important one. I have here the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for 1949, on page 70 of which he indicates that no fewer than 300 pedestrians were killed within fifty yards of pedestrian crossings but not on them. Anything we can do to try to make people use these crossings is of service.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this other question. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, suggested that these regulations should apply only to crossings within built-up areas. I could not agree with him more. But there are a number of controlled crossings outside the built-up areas, and it is a little difficult to know what to do about them. I wonder whether, in his reply, the noble Lord could give the House an idea of how he thinks these crossings should be dealt with.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl please repeat that?
EARL HOWE: With reference to crossings outside built-up areas, if the noble Lord accepts the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, with which I entirely agree, that these new regulations should apply only inside built-up yeas, can the noble Lord give us an idea of what will happen with crossings outside the built-up areas, and how far the proposed regulations will apply to them?
With reference to the striped crossings, there again the Committee on which I had the honour to serve examined the same question as long ago as 1934. We then decided that we preferred the combination of black and yellow to black and white, as we thought it more visible. The noble Lord produced quite good reasons for not giving the force of law to the Highway Code as it stands. But could not he and his officials go through the Highway Code and select a few of the points which could be strengthened? It seems to me that there are provisions in the Highway Code which might well be given more force than they have at present, without their having the force of law. The noble Lord asked what we thought about the lights, and what sort of signals should be given to pedestrians. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess. Lord Reading, that nothing is better than the "Cross now." If that could be extended to all controlled crossings, I cannot help feeling chat that would be the best way of indicating to the pedestrian that his great moment to go across the road had come.
3.22 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I have been in touch with the West Riding Police, and a high official asked me last week whether I could put forward in this debate a few of their difficulties. After listening to my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am relieved, because his clear statement has made it obvious that these regulations can be worked. This senior officer was afraid that there might be chaos. I always thought that the colour of a zebra was yellow and black.
LORD HAWKE: No.
LORD CALVERLEY: I have seen only one in my life.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord is thinking of a wasp.
LORD CALVERLEY: I have seen plenty of them, and been stung. What is the colour of a zebra—black and white, like the whisky? What I am driving at is that we can expect greater success for these regulations, owing to the continued action and constructs work of the police during the past four or five years. For over four years I have been associated with the Road Accident Prevention Federation in Yorkshire, and from January 1 to December 31, last year, the police in the West Riding alone addressed 154,786 children in 1,229 schools. Your Lordships will see that the police are taking the hard, although the most successful, way in trying to prevent accidents. When your Lordships consider that in the West Riding alone there are, in addition, ten county boroughs, with their own police forces, all working on similar lines, with the police in full accord with the educational authorities, you will appreciate that we are converting the children to be missionaries to try to prevent accidents. Only last week the chief constable in a great borough in Yorkshire stated, as I have done when I have been touring the countryside that the children are now teaching their parents the Highway Code. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will agree with me, when I think of him in his salad days in another place, that he also needed a little conversion.
I want your Lordships to contemplate over 400,000 children being taught the ordinary kerb drill and what to do, not only in the large congested areas, but also on the country roads. It was emphasised in yesterday's debate that in the country, where there are no "zebra" or other crossings, the children themselves act as little policemen, and they are doing a great job of work. The statistics for Yorkshire up to December 31 last year show that the number of fatal accidents and accidents causing injury to children have been halved. That is something constructive and positive, upon which we can look with pleasure, and it has been done under the guidance of this much-maligned Ministry of Transport. I will not weary your Lordships with a great many statistics, but it appears that 31 per cent. of the accidents were caused by drivers of vehicles, and 24 per cent. by dogs.
With regard to the policies of the various magistrates courts, manned by

91
what we call lay magistrates, as a working magistrate myself I can say that we consciously try, without bias, every case that comes before us. We are bound by the same laws as are stipendiary magistrates in the London Metropolitan area, or anywhere else, and we have the same maximum penalties. I suggest to your Lordships that it is our duty as lay magistrates to listen patiently to these cases, and not to have a sort of standard penalty, willy-nilly, as I believe they have in some parts of America. Is the noble Earl, Lord Howe, an advocate of that?
EARL HOWE: No.
LORD CALVERLEY: I thought he would not be. Every case should be tried upon its merits. Sometimes we find that the police have summoned the wrong person, and we dismiss the case. I do protest at the slightest implication being thrown at these lay magistrates, especially in our large cities. My colleagues and I have already had six cases this month, and we try to consider, on the evidence, what our verdict should be. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the juries. The jury do not pass a sentence in a High Court—I should like to tell him that bit of law without charge. It is the High Court Judge who assesses what the sentence for manslaughter shall be. I will not even criticise a High Court Judge. The reason why I rose was mainly to emphasise that these new regulations will have a better prospect of success now than they would have had in the "bad old days" when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had a lot to do with transport. There has been a reformation. We believe that the children can reform even their own parents. If we can go on as we are doing, with the good will of the education authorities and the teachers, and with the police going into the schools and talking to these young children, the results will be positive in the days to come. It is a hard road, and we are not going to achieve miraculous results.
I am not going to touch upon the roads, as that subject was dealt with yesterday, but I should like to make a present to the Parliamentary Secretary of 114 photographs sent to me by the highways committee of the West Riding County Council. They are nearly "at their wits' end" in trying to keep the Al and similar roads in any sort of repair—some
92
of them made only recently. I wish my noble friend would try that charming smile of his on the Treasury and get some money out of them. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his friends now contribute £200,000,000 and receive back between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. It was Mr. Winston Churchill who said that he would "rob the hen roost," and went to the Road Fund. Succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequers have been receivers of the ill-gotten gains. I wish my noble friend and his Department would allow the authorities to repair these roads, some of which were made only just prior to 1939. It would not cost a great deal now, but if nothing is done there will be a big bill to pay in a few years' time. Although I believe I am out of order in speaking about it—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD CALVERLEY: I beg your Lordships' pardon. Several noble Lords were out of order yesterday. I will not transgress any more, except to say that this is one of our major problems. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about the Highway Code. The police in the West Riding have made a film, and I wish the noble Earl could have appeared in the film being "run in." That film has gone all over the country, and Australia has asked for it. The Highway Code should be produced on those lines. The film comes from the West Riding, where there are more vehicles using the roads than in any other part of the country, with the exception of the Metropolitan area. The County Palatine of Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire are publishing this film on their own. It is already out of print, and no more money will be allowed us. It is far better than any of the Highway Codes because the instruction is in pictures. I will not trouble the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, any longer. I have a whole sheaf of notes, and I wish I could make a present of them to him and ask him if one of his secretaries would "vet" them and see whether anything can. be done. I support what he is doing.
3.34 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I must start by joining issue with the noble Lord who has just sat down upon his attack upon the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the question of education of children. There has been no Peer in this House since I have been here who has done so

93
much to advocate the education of children. It has been one of his hobby horses, to my knowledge, certainly for the last eighteen years.
LORD CALVERLEY: I was not attacking the noble Earl. I knew him in his salad clays, when we were colleagues together in another place.
LORD SANDHURST: There is one point about which I know the noble Earl is most anxious, and it is that when these new regulations come out they should, if possible, be circulated in a form which will appeal to children. He and I have many times seen a mother with a pram with a child in it and a small child walking alongside. The small child has pulled the mother back and stopped her going into the road when she should not.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a remark which completely defeated me. He said that the multiplicity of pedestrian crossings led to lack of respect by the pedestrians. I should have thought that it certainly led to lack of respect by motorists, but that it ought to have led to an encouragement to pedestrians to use them as they had not to walk too far to do so. I am wondering whether he actually said what he meant. I am also going to join issue with both the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and my noble friend, Lord Howe, on the question of the colour of the crossings. They both advocate black and yellow. I know that most careful experiments have been made by the Road Research Laboratory. I have seen those experiments, and I have actually experienced for myself the difference between looking at black and white, and black and yellow. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that black and white is the winner every time. I hope, therefore, that, whatever has been said this afternoon, the Ministry will stick to their black and white.
Then we come to this vexed problem of what the noble Lord calls the "zebra crossing," on an uncontrolled road. Now that is a problem with which it is very difficult to deal. The motorist expects to "bat" down that road fairly fast, and he watches the traffic. The traffic will probably obscure from his view the zebra crossing, and quite likely he will not even be able to see a Belisha beacon. If we are going to have uncontrolled crossings, as I call them, on uncontrolled roads, I
94
think there should be some light indication—say, a hundred yards each side of the crossing—to the effect that there is a pedestrian crossing ahead. Certain authorities in this country have already adopted that method, and I an sure it has a salutary effect. It slows the motorist down and gives him a chance to stop when somebody steps off the pavement. Short of that, I do not see how a success can be made of a pedestrian crossing on an uncontrolled road unless there are lights there.
Now I want to come to what I consider is the fundamental point about pedestrian crossings. I have no arguments at all against the regulations; I am fully in favour of them. I think there is an almost impossible problem to solve, and the regulations go as near to solving the impossible as they can. But there is one problem which will materially affect those regulations and their success, and that is the actual siting of the crossings. Now I submit that that is a specialist's job. The right man to do it is the gentleman I mentioned yesterday—a traffic engineer. I am going to ask the Minister the question I asked yesterday and to which I did not get a reply, but to which I do expect a reply to-day because he has been in his job a sufficiently long time to know the answer. Is there a single traffic engineer employed at the Ministry?—I mean a traffic engineer as distinct from a road surveyor, because a traffic engineer is a man who, by his training, if he has gone through the proper course, has learnt where to put a pedestrian crossing so that the motorist will respect it and so that it will be of some use to the pedestrian. Unless it fulfils those two requirements, it might just as well not exist. That is a most important point. It is a specialist's job. The police cannot do it; they do not know enough. They know a great deal but they do not know enough for that; they have not been specially trained. It is a job for a specially trained man.
I have one final word, on the problem of traffic filtering to the left at a controlled crossing. I would suggest that the answer to that problem may prove a nuisance to the foot passenger—and I am a foot passenger practically 100 per cent. when I am in the City because I do not like driving cars in traffic. The answer is to put the pedestrian crossing back

95
about ten yards from the actual turning, and not on the turning itself. That will have this effect. To start with, it will automatically stop the traffic well short of the crossing, so that the man who "jumps" the light will not do it as dangerously as he does at the present moment. It will give the pedestrian plenty of time to see the car coming along and give the driver of the car plenty of time to see the pedestrian. Furthermore, it will allow one or two cars to draw up behind one another whilst they are waiting for the pedestrians to cross, without creating a great block of traffic behind. I hope those have been constructive suggestions and that I shall get a reply to my question about the traffic engineer.
3.42 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for the approval you have given to these proposed regulations and for the helpful suggestions that have been made. I will undertake to consider them all. I will answer one or two points now. I will at once put the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, at rest on his question: Do we employ traffic engineers at the Ministry of Transport? The answer is yes, the best in the country. Another point I was asked was whether the regulations will apply to Northern Ireland or only to the United Kingdom. The answer is, only to the United Kingdom. Another point is that the black and white striped crossing was adopted after extensive research and experiments by the Road Research Laboratory. I myself have seen it and tested it and I absolutely confirm their choice. You have to take into considera-tion that it must be viewed obliquely. All the other suggestions I will consider. I can say now to the noble Earl that I do not think it will be only an exceptional case when a zebra crossing is put outside a built-up area. I appreciate his point about the "Cross now" lights, and if the noble Earl will tell the Ministry where, in his view, we can extend those "Cross now" pedestrian lights, his suggestion will receive every consideration.
LORD SANDHURST: Is the noble Lord able to tell me where his traffic engineers receive their training—because it is not in this country. The only place that I know of where there is a faculty is in America.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not that information, but I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that they are properly trained and that they are the best traffic engineers in the country.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: May I ask the noble Lord whether the 35,000 pedestrian crossings include the crossings in Scotland?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SITING OF NEW COLONIAL OFFICE
3.44 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE rose to call attention to the recent expressions of public opinion in favour of retaining, as an open space, the site of the old Westminster Hospital; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider erecting the new Colonial Office on some other site unless, by replanning, the frontage can be set back to accord with the strong representations of the Royal Fine Art Commission; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset of this, my maiden speech, I earnestly beg your Lordships' indulgence and ask your forgiveness for the many shortcomings that will be apparent in the design and presentation of my remarks. It is an architectural subject upon which I am about to speak, and I hope that the fact that I am an architect may favourably incline your Lordships' ears. During the process of acquiring the site of the old Westminster Hospital by Act of Parliament in 1947, many reasons were advanced in favour of erecting upon it, and upon the adjoining site of the Stationery Office, a new building to house the Colonial Office. It was, however, only the other day, when the site was cleared, that many people were able to realise what the consequence of that proposal would be, and they therefore began to reconsider these previously advanced reasons.
The first of these is the view, widely held, that as the site was bought by Act of Parliament for the purpose of building the new Colonial Office, the work must proceed as proposed, unless a new Act

97
of Parliament is introduced. But, my Lords, there is no mention in the Act of the Colonial Office. How can it be said that it is obligatory upon us to build the Colonial Office on that site? Let it not be thought, in drawing attention to this fact, that I want to relegate the Colonial Office to any unworthy site. Filial piety alone would militate against that, because I realise to the full that my father was at one time Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and therefore I should be the last to belittle that Office and its invaluable work for our great Colonial possessions. I only wish to make it quite clear that there is nothing in the Act which compels us to adopt the course now proposed.
A second reason in favour of the scheme was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in your Lordships' House on November 21 last, when he said that the proposal commanded general approval and that no vote was taken in either House. But the proposal was only to acquire the site—a proposal with which I believe everyone agreed, and still agrees. During the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the then Minister of Works made it quite clear when he said:
"All I am asking for now is the power to acquire the site."
Of course there was no vote against that, although even at that time voices were raised in doubt about the appropriate development of the site—notably the voice of the honourable Member for West Middlesbrough, who said at that early stage, in the first part of his speech on May 2, 1947, exactly what I feel now.
A third argument, a most cogent argument in favour of building over the whole of the site, is the very great cost of acquisition. It is indeed a most regrettable thing that a site which was sold, I understand, by the Treasury in 1831 for £6,000 should cost them £400,000 to buy back in 1947. I agree, therefore, that the best possible use should be made of the site, from every point of view. Even an architect must believe, however, that there are some pieces of land which can be better used by not building on them. In my opinion this small area is of incalculably greater value to us all as an open space than as a portion of a Government office. Noble Lords must not overlook the fact that even if no building use is made of
98
the greater part of the Westminster Hospital site, it was still necessary to acquire it if the Stationery Office site behind was to be developed to the full and the roadway between the two sites absorbed and built over.
Fourthly, it is argued in the Press and elsewhere that large open spaces are not necessarily æsthetically desirable around our great abbeys and cathedrals. But the space about which I am talking is not large. If the new Colonial Office were set back so as to leave the greater part of the old hospital site vacant, the total width of Broad Sanctuary from north to south would still be only about 110 yards; it is now 80 yards. From east to west (that is from the West Door of the Abbey to the start of Victoria Street), it is only 90 yards. It is also said that the beauty of a great abbey is enhanced by a huddle of roofs jostling against its walls. I agree that this can make a very attractive composition, but surely no one could possibly contend that the new Colonial Office, much as one may admire the design—and I wholeheartedly admire it—will even remotely resemble a huddle of roofs. A hundred feet high for the most part, and flat-topped, it will reach up almost to the level of the coping of the Abbey nave, and will be 10 feel above the base of the dome of the Central Hall.
Fifthly, my Lords, we are told that it is too late; that we ought to have had sufficient imagination to realise earlier what the result of this proposal would mean. The fact must be admitted that it takes a lot to stir our imaginations in an architectural sense. Something dramatic has to happen before we begin to sit up and take notice. Unless St. Paul's Cathedral had been miraculously saved amid the surrounding devastation, would the imaginations of the City Fathers have been stirred to preserve the view of the Cathedral from the south-east by the laying-out of a garden on valuables building land? Similarly, in this case, it was only when the old Westminster Hospital vanished before our eyes that we realised what possibilities would be lost for ever if we did not take advantage of the open space revealed. I am sure that there would have been a very different story to tell if the Hospital had been demolished first and then, after that,

99
we had been asked to approve the proposal now put forward.
The new model is now on exhibition in your Lordships' Library. I do not know how many of you have had an opportunity of seeing it, or whether arrangements will be made for its public exhibition. I am very grateful to the Ministry of Works for having given me last week a preview of it, and for their great courtesy in thus helping to stir my sluggish imagination. With its aid we can now see the new building in relation to its surroundings. We can see how it projects forward, spilling its huge bulk into Broad Sanctuary and, just by that projection, ruining what would otherwise be a seemly lay-out with its neighbours. If your Lordships could spare the time to go to St. Margaret's, Westminster, and on coming out through the West Door of that beautiful church, would look straight before you, you would find most clearly demonstrated this seemly lay-out, with the Abbey on your left, Middlesex Guildhall on your right and the Central Hall symmetrically placed in front of you on the axis. If your Lordships then look at the model from the same relative position, you will see at a glance how deplorable is the projection of the new building.
All this leads me to advance some reasons in favour of retaining the greatest possible amount of open space at this most historic spot. In this small Square are set the entrances to two great buildings, the first of which is the most venerated and beloved structure in the whole of the British Commonwealth—namely, the Abbey. At its doors assemble on occasion great and solemn concourses and processions. How absurd that, at this point, of all points, we should perpetuate that constriction which has repeatedly occurred between the Coronation Annex and the corner of the Westminster Hospital site, so that manoeuvring there is impossible! Even narrower is the roadway at the entrance to the other great building adjoining Broad Sanctuary, the Central Hall. Here again, no manoeuvring space will be possible at this point if the new building is erected as proposed. The hall will continue to have a hole-in-corner approach, although it is a hall seating 2,700 and is used for gatherings of a national and even an international character.
Mention of the Central Hall brings me to the crux of the whole matter. Although noble Lords may find it difficult to imagine at the present time, I think there is no doubt that one day this building will be acclaimed as a splendid example of the architecture of its period. We should not let the fact that its period is out of fashion now blind us to the lasting merits of a building such as this— now seen for the first time from the Parliament Square approach. My Lords, if the new building is erected on the line proposed, half the Eastern façade of the Central Hall will again be tucked away down a side street, and all the dignity and seemliness of the Western approaches to the Abbey destroyed, perhaps for ever.
In viewing the Central Hall with a critical eye, noble Lords should bear in mind that the building has never been completed. When Mr. Lanchester and Mr. Rickards won the competition, their design showed twin towers flanking and supporting the dome on the Eastern side; and one has only to look at the late Mr. Rickard's fine drawing to see how essential to the whole composition these towers are. They were never built, owing to difficulties over rights of light with the Hospital. But now, at last, if only the Colonial Office can be set back sufficiently, the opportunity offers to repair that which in this very context was described nearly forty years ago as "the unsightliness of the incomplete." I therefore asked the Trustees of the Central Hall what are the prospects of thus embellishing the London scene, and their agents replied to me as follows:
"We are authorised on behalf of the Trustees of the Central Hall to advise you that in the event of the old Westminster Hospital site being retained as an open space, the Trustees of the Central Hall would, when labour conditions and the financial position permit, proceed with the erection of the towers as proposed in the original plans of the building, subject to any architectural modifications deemed advisable."
But, my Lords, can these improvements and embellishments be carried out and the Colonial Office still find a home here?
We know, because the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, told us so in this House on November 21, that the Royal Fine Art Commission strongly represented that the new building should be set back so far as to leave the old site almost entirely vacant, and he stated that this would have made the building too small to house

101
the Colonial Office, I feel, however, that this view needs very careful consideration, because I do not believe that the building would be too small. We do not know of course, what are the detailed requirements of this Department, but there are sure to be many of a very special nature, differing greatly from the normal requirements of an ordinary office block. Nevertheless, one has only to make a few calculations to realise that it would be easily possible, on the reduced site, to house to the most comfortable standard of modern office accommodation all the required staff—1,300 of them—while leaving at least a whole floor free for ceremonial and special purposes. As a comparison for your Lordships, this free floor area, which is one whole floor of the building, would be at the very least more than twice the floor area of Westminster Hall.
When the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said in this House, in the same speech from which I have just quoted, that over a third of the site had been surrendered, I was full of hope. I thought that much had been accomplished, and I dare say that many of your Lordships who were here felt the same. But when I went to look at the plans, and saw the model, I realised that the third was not at all the third that I had envisaged, but was made up of strips at the East and West sides, and only quite a small setting back on the all-important South front. In fact, the pavement line on the South front appears to be hardly varied at all. I maintain that if that area of land which the Government have already agreed to surrender is applied, with a bit added for good measure, to the all-important setting back of the South front, the Colonial Office would get all it needs and we should have a dignified square. But if we are still told that the requirements of the client Department (and do not let us be misled by the use of that insufficient term in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in November; in a matter of this importance the whole country is the client), the accommodation needed for the Colonial Office cannot be found by replanning, then let a smaller Department be housed in the new building which must replace the old Stationery Office, and let another sit: be allocated to the Colonial Office where there may be room and to spare without disservice to neighbouring buildings.
We have been accused of lack of imagination in not appreciating at an earlier stage the effect of the Government proposals in the area of Broad Sanctuary. But on this question of sites for Government offices it is, I suggest, the Government who have been so lacking in imagination, although they have in other ways helped forward admirably the cause of the visual arts in this country. It seems that they can now envisage the provision of offices for their use only by building, where a vast improvement would be attained by a measure of clearance or where, thanks to our forbears, we already possess a seemly layout. Of the former, the site we are considering is alas! perhaps to be followed by the obliteration of even more noteworthy aspects of the Abbey from the South-east- in the redevelopment of Abingdon Street. Of the latter, Carlton House Terrace has already attracted their attention for the uses of expediency. Surely the wise landlord, when he is obliged to extend his premises, employs the opportunity to raise the standard of less favoured parts of his own or adjoining property, rather than to misuse or spoil that which is already good.
If, then, the Colonial Office need more room than can be found by a more modest use of the Westminster Hospital site, then let us turn our eyes to those areas, not too far distant, where the demolition of obsolete or derelict buildings, and their replacement with a fine new Government building, would be a benefaction in itself. We have seen what can be done in the way of clearance for so transitory a purpose as an Exhibition—and that is not the only part of the South Bank which is due for a major overhaul. I do not propose, however, to examine in all detail the many alternatives which offer, until it has been proved that the reasonable requirements of the Colonial Office cannot be adequately met without engulfing the site of the old Westminster Hospital. My Lords, cannot we by some means keep this blessed plot free from building? Cannot we accept the strong representations of the Royal Fine Art Commission, instead of the dismal compromise to which they afterwards regrettably agreed? Rather than the latter, I think that another site could and should be found for the Colonial Office, but I strongly urge, and firmly believe, that this will not be proved to be necessary. I beg to move for Papers.
4.8 p.m.
LORD BADELEY: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his first speech in this House. For that speech he has chosen a subject upon which he can speak with the knowledge and authority of one who has risen high in his profession, and I know I am expressing your Lordships' appreciation of his words. Many of your Lordships will have a lively and affectionate remembrance of his father, who was for so long a member of this House. I am tempted to say that in this case we have yet another example of the argument in favour of the hereditary principle—or perhaps noble Lords opposite would prefer the phrase "in extenuation of the hereditary principle" —for once more we see the old dictum justified: Uno avulso non deficit alter. It is quite true in the case of the noble Lord. The noble Lord's scheme seems to me to go far to meet the views of the Ministry of Works and certainly of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and to go far also to assuage public feeling on the subject. I do not think he will ask the Minister to give a definite reply to-day, and I believe it would be unfair to do so, but I do hope that the Minister, whatever happens, will be careful to give close attention to the arguments that have been adduced.
The noble Lord has dealt with the scheme so thoroughly and, if I may say so, so competently, that I should only be wearying your Lordships if I went over the same ground again. I propose, therefore, in the few remarks that I am going to make, to deal with the idea that emerged towards the end of his speech— and I know I shall be batting on a very sticky wicket—and that is the question of an alternative site. As germane to that, I would ask your Lordships to consider what is taking place in London today. It is obvious that one of the major headaches from which the present Government are suffering is that caused by the necessity to find accommodation for the vast family of civil servants which they have created. There is really only one remedy for that, and that is to put some curb on—I do not quite know what to call it but, shall we say, the prolific paternity of the Government in this direction. That, of course, may be in contemplation, because from a glance at the
104
Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General I see that no less a sum than £72,000,000 is going to be saved on services. Let us hope that some of that will be achieved by diminution of the Civil Service. Without such a diminution, without that curb on the Government's paternity, I see no possibility of alleviation of the Government's headache.
I should like your Lordships to consider for one moment what has happened. Whitehall has long since ceased to be the headquarters of Government offices or, at any rate, of the majority of Government offices. They are cropping up now all over London. Kensington has been invaded, Mayfair has been invaded. Take, for instance, Berkeley Square. What chance would the unhappy nightingale have to-day of making its voice heard against the noise of transport activities in the neighbourhood? A few hundred yards further on the almost sacred sartorial grove of Savile Row is now almost entirely overshadowed by the gigantic building of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. One almost feels diffident about creeping into one's tailor's establishment to get a patch put on a favourite garment. Further South it is almost worse We find the splendid façade of Carlton House Terrace threatened by an extension of the Foreign Office. Worst of all, perhaps, in Whitehall itself, from the ruins of Montagu House, so close to those glorious buildings of the Horse Guards, the Banqueting Hall and Gwydir House, we see a huge erection rearing its head, designed, I am told, to house an enormous number of civil servants—a building remarkable only for that crude nudity of architectural design which seems to characterise so many of these modern utility models. As the noble Lord said, do let us keep, as long as we can, some of the remaining beauty in this land.
The point I come to now is the question of another site. I see the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, almost settling down in comfort, knowing, no doubt, that his mind is made up on this point. One of the objections which he will probably raise to the building on the smaller scale which has been proposed by my noble friend is that it will be too small for the requirements which it has to meet. That may be so. But there

105
are a good many Government Departments scattered not only over London but over the whole country. Take, for instance, the Inland Revenue. I have had correspondence on matters relating to income tax from places as far apart as Liverpool, Cardiff, Worthing, and Thames Ditton. Surely convenience and economy would be effected by some coordination of these various branches under one roof. Then there are a number of other smaller Government Departments. The suggestion I have to put to the noble Lord is that the building as curtailed by the suggestion of my noble friend might be quite large enough to contain one of those smaller Government Departments, and then a new and dignified building could be erected for the Dominions and Colonial Office. No one for a moment would question the desirability of having such an office. The Dominions and Colonies are, after all, probably of greater value to us now than they have ever been.
The site I would suggest is one in respect of which admirable precedent has been set by the Ministry of Works themselves. It is on the South Bank of the river. Many of your Lordships who use Waterloo Station will have seen the huge ruin of Messrs. Doulton's porcelain works. They have been neither restored nor demolished. If that ruin were removed, it would provide a space for a really fine building with an approach far more dignified than anything that could be obtained at Westminster. Access to Westminster is easy, and the frontage and approach could, with a little clearance, be made very good. And for neighbours, what could be more respectable than Lambeth Palace and the Ministry of Works? I can see no objection to that site, though others may have something to say about it. The great objection to it, I have no doubt the Government will say, is that of expense. One can understand well in these days, when such enormous demands are being made upon them, that it is impossible to ask the Government to spend a large sum of money on an entirely new project. But would it not be possible to house the Dominions and Colonial Office in some other large building which the Government may consider more respectable than the present establishment, and to defer the building of the new office on the site until the financial stress has lessened? One point upon which I wish to dwell
106
for a moment is this. We have the opportunity now of saving a site which to the hearts of Englishmen is probably one of the most dear. If we lose it we shall not get it again. After all, this is the time to beautify where we can instead of disfiguring as we do.
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I rise to support very strongly the speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and to join in congratulating him upon it. His speech was not only closely reasoned but it was persuasive, both in matter and manner. I hope that we shall often hear the noble Lord speak in this House. If I had on this occasion to do what I have to do when I give addresses in other places —that is, to take a text—I should take some words which during the war were inscribed over ticket collectors' offices in the railway stations—" Is your journey really necessary?" I want to base three questions upon those words to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government.
First, I would ask him: Is it really necessary to have this extension of the Colonial Office, either here or elsewhere? There is quite a modern craze for putting up vast buildings for all Government Ministries. But we are told that this is a time when there ought to be national economy. Is this a time when money should be spent on this building? We also know that it is necessary to build as many houses as possible for the working classes of the nation. I wonder how many houses could be built with the money and labour which is to be devoted to this building. I know that it is often said that the size of the staff of the Ministry is so great that a large building is required to house them. But often it is, in fact, the other way round: a large building is put up, and then the Ministry concerned feel that they must live up to that building, and fill it with staff. The larger the building the greater the temptation to have a large staff. So that is my first question to the noble Lord—is it really necessary to have this great extension? If, to my sorrow, he gives an unfavourable answer to that question I shall go on to the second.
If we are going to have this new building, is it really necessary to have it in this particular place, of all places in London or in England? At certain hours of the clay there is a great deal of discomfort through congestion. People pour out

107
from the surrounding offices and crowd the buses and Underground. Now, if this building is put up, there will be several more hundreds of people pouring out; and in days to come, when, as I have no doubt will happen, every civil servant has his own car, the congestion will be even greater than now. But the real objection to having the building on this site is that which has been pointed out by the noble Lord who has raised this question— namely, that it will obscure some really remarkable views which we have at the present time of Westminster Abbey and of Central Hall.
I must bear testimony that a few weeks ago I underwent a sudden conversion. I know that psychologists say that no one over fifty can undergo that experience. I had always looked upon the Central Hall as a building which was dull and ponderous. That was because usually I had seen only the lower part, with a number of unattractive advertisements. But the other day when walking from this House in that direction, quite suddenly I saw the Central Hall in its true proportions, unobstructed by any other building, and I agree, with what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said from an architect's point of view, that it is a very striking building of that period. We have that view at the present moment, as well as a much finer view of the Abbey. Surely we should do what we can to keep it. I do not know whether there is any discussion about a war memorial in connection with this last war, a memorial to our great deliverance. I wonder whether there could be any better or finer memorial than the preservation of this open space, and its use for various national memorials as occasion may arise. Here again, I am not confident that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will give a favourable answer to the question: Is it really necessary to have these offices in this place?
So I go on to my much more modest question: Is it really necessary to have a building which by its height will dominate the surrounding buildings, conceal the Central Hall and, at the same time, take away from us this new unrestricted view of the Abbey? Is it really necessary to have a building of the proposed height and projection, so that it shuts out all these views? That is the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Like myself, he is not
108
over-hopeful of a Government Department being so suddenly and completely converted that they give up all idea of having a building in this place, but I think there is some hope that the Government may be prepared to make such adjustments in existing plans that some of the worse of the dangers now threatened may be removed. Therefore, I join the two noble Lords who have already spoken in urging in the strongest possible way that the Government should reconsider these proposals and preserve an outlook which, if it is lost now, will be lost for ever.
4.24 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words on this subject, as it was I who first brought it to your Lordships' attention some three or four months ago. I am particularly happy to follow my noble friend Lord Mottistone in the admirable maiden speech which he has just made, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, because they have both strongly taken a view I ventured to take then—namely, that the question of allowing a proper view of Central Hall was more important than the problems of proximity to Westminster Abbey. I was also very happy to hear the most reverend Primate supporting me in what I think to be the principal argument for not building on this site—namely, the question of traffic congestion.
When I raised this matter previously I pointed out that we should be importing some 1,500 civil servants, with their visitors and transport, to clutter up the roads, buses and tube stations during rush hours. But surely the offices they vacate however, said that these civil servants would be vacating premises in the neighbourhood, and that they would not add to the total of the traffic during working hours. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will be seized upon in a moment by other people, and the traffic will only be increased. Furthermore, we are already putting up an enormous block of offices behind the United Services Museum, as the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, has remarked, and another huge block is going up behind the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The traffic situation in two years within 300 yards of Parliament Square is going to be indescribable. It is bad enough as it is. We have all suffered from the No. 11 bus—perhaps I should say "No. 11

109
buses," instead of No. 11 bus in the singular. There is no such thing as one No. 11 bus. London Transport breed and train No. 11 buses to work in teams. The transport situation is going to be absolutely chaotic.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the model which the noble Lord. Lord Morrison, has kindly put into the Library for us. When looked at by a man of average height, it gives an impression of the actual site as seen, not from the ground hut from the roof of Westminster Hall. One has to bend down a little to see the real damage that is going to be done to the façade of Central Hall. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the most reverend Primate said, that Central Hall is a first-class building. It has been said that the Middlesex Guildhall was built to block out the sight of the Central Hall from Parliament. I do not believe that to be true or kind. There are two things to do: either block it out or leave it uncovered, but to leave it half uncovered by the jutting proportions of the new Colonial Office seems to me wholly wrong.
As to leaving the whole site open, I realise that great financial difficulty presents itself. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will say that, and that it is a very difficult argument to counter. For reasons which the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Badeley, have given, and which I will not repeat, I should like the site left open. I am not one of those who think that a great building should automatically be surrounded with an open space. There are buildings which are designed to be surrounded by smaller buildings. St. Paul's Cathedral was designed by Sir Christopher Wren to have houses round it. The Minster of the most reverend Primate at York was designed to be surrounded on two sides by buildings, and to be left open on the other sides. Winchester and Salisbury Cathedrals were designed to be left open. The great French Cathedrals, Beauvais, Chartres and Amiens, on the other hand, were designed to be surrounded. I have looked into this matter fairly carefully, and on the evidence it seems to the that Westminster Abbey was designed to be left open. That appears to add to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
The matter comes down to this: the site should be left open, but we believe
110
we are going to get an unfavourable answer. We should, therefore, as the next best thing, try to cut back the Colonial Office to open up a view of Central Hall and avoid crowding in upon Westminster Abbey. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, whether he has studied the plan which Mr. Philip Cundle, the architect, produced in an attempt to solve this problem and which is now in the Ministry of Works. This Government have not a good record for a Government who boast so much about their planning capabilities. There was the plot for Carlton House Terrace, which I must say I regard with the greatest suspicion and about which the vigilant Westminster City Council expressed similar views. The Ministry have attempted some very odd things with the Nash terraces on the North side of Regent's Park. Fortunately, an equally vigilant and suspicious Marylebone Borough Council pointed out their forebodings.
Now there is this proposition. I think it is high time the anti-planners started to plan their anti-planning. This debate is a good attempt. I was always in favour of the old Westminster Precinct idea put forward in the Architectural Review before the war, which left the whole of this area free from traffic and to be treated as one whole precinct. That was an excellent idea. It has now become a little more controversial because, quite apart from the immense problems of money and labour involved, I understand that if it were implemented, now the first thing that would have to be done would be to demolish the Conservative Central Office. I know that Parliament has already decided this matter, but let us admit frankly that we made a mistake— never mind whose fault it was. We did not see what would be the effect upon this vastly important site if we allowed this rebuilding of the Colonial Office to go forward. Before it is too late let us reconsider and see whether we can do something to correct our mistake. The model in the Library shows clearly what an incongrous jumble the heart of the Empire is going to look if this plan goes through. I do not believe there is any other country in the world which would allow this to happen, and I beg of your Lordships to join in pressing upon the Ministry the need for reconsideration of the whole matter.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords are grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for bringing this matter before this House, and for giving us an opportunity of expressing our views about it. Indeed, the number of those of your Lordships who have already taken part and who desire to take part in this discussion is evidence of the public interest that it has aroused. I do not think there is any need for long speeches, as your Lordships have shown, because the matter is not one to be settled by long and weighty argument. You either feel it, or you do not, and no amount of argument will convince the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench unless he is prepared to be convinced. However, I am inclined to be more hopeful about his reply than was my noble friend Lord Mancroft, because I have watched Lord Morrison on the Bench, and I have observed him move, as I thought, some way along the road of assent as the previous speakers were speaking. I therefore have great hopes that by the time we reach the end of the debate he. although not giving a decisive answer to-day, will find it possible to give those of us who take this view a considerable measure of hope.
The Westminster site that is under discussion has a double interest at the present time. As has been noticed, there is, first of all. its effect on the view of the West end of the Abbey and, secondly, on that of the Central Hall. On both those points I find myself in complete agreement with what has been said by those who have preceded me in this debate. I find myself recording in my mind a certain element of hesitation in agreeing with what fell from my noble friend Lord Mancroft, when he said that he was not convinced of the general desirability of having space round large and noble buildings, because some were obviously designed rather to be clustered than to stand alone. He may be right technically—I would not set myself up as a judge or authority on that point—but I would assert that almost every place I know gains in dignity and power from being set in space. It may be that not many of us are qualified to judge of design on any technical standard—and certainly I am not—but I am competent to say that for me and, I think, for most people, one
112
of the elements of beauty is just that extra space that will lend size and dignity to any building. As has been emphasised in the debate, here we have an opportunity of doing something, an opportunity that comes all too seldom and one which, in this particular locality, may never recur, in this capital city of London, which, I venture to say, of all the capital cities of Europe that I know, is the worst showman of its things of beauty. We have many beautiful, historic, traditional and distinguished buildings for all sorts of reasons, but owing to congestion of space we are unable to show them; and the world passes them by almost unconscious of their existence. To-day we have an opportunity to remedy that situation.
I should like to mention one other thing that I think lends general support to what I have been trying to say, and to what other noble Lords have said more successfully. Those of your Lordships who have visited India will not have failed to be struck by many of the ancient and beautiful monuments of that country, and will have admired both their preservation and their setting. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware of how much of that is owed to the particular work discharged by the late Lord Curzon, when he was Viceroy, and of how much he did to secure for all time, in so far as was humanly possible, those treasures of beauty from the past. I believe that it is true to say that the bulk of his achievement was not in any restoration—though that was also included in his work—but consisted for the greater part in clearing the sites, in order that people could see them. Over and over again, if one looks at the great monuments of India, one realises that most of what Lord Curzon did consisted in widening the space and making a clear view for the spectator to appreciate. Lord Curzon once said that he anticipated that, when a record of his work in India was made, he was much more likely to be remembered for what he had done in the way of making possible that reconstruction of beauty than for any political or administrative reforms to which his name might be attached. Even though this scheme may cost a little money, I still submit that where in London you have a little space offered to you it should be. snatched with both hands, and it is short-sighted to allow such an opportunity as this to go by. For those reasons,

113
I would appeal to the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government to use his influence with his colleagues, and to recommend one or other of the possible solutions to which the speech this afternoon of my noble friend Lord Mottistone has opened the way.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, as the noble Earl has just said, there is no need for long speeches on this subject: indeed, the opening speech of the mover, Lord Mottistone, was so thorough that there is now little left for any of us to say. I rise for only a few moments, first, to add my small tribute to the congratulations of your Lordships to Lord Mottistone on his speech, and secondly, as a friend of his who works with him in various oilier capacities, to express my strong support of his Motion this afternoon. It is also my duty as Chairman of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association to state in public that that Association are most strongly behind Lord Mottistone in his proposal, and that they hope sincerely that the Government will accede to it.
The only other point I wish to emphasise is the desirability of curtailing expenditure on buildings which may not be necessary. In private conversation with Lord Mottistone I ascertained from him that the computed or estimated 1,300 officials in the Colonial Office could be comfortably housed—including a whole floor for ceremonial occasions—on the site of the old Stationery Office, without impinging at all on the site of the old Westminster Hospital. If that is so, it surely appeals to all of us that it would be wrong to erect unnecessary buildings when the site is so urgently required for the æsthetic purposes which have been argued. I suppose it is true to say that if we are to retain our Colonial Empire, taking a long view it can only be by the granting of more and more self-government to its constituent parts. Therefore, it would seem that the Colonial Office is one which would tend to shrink in size rather than otherwise. If that is not considered a cogent argument, then, as has been put forward by other speakers, cannot a smaller department be allocated to this site and the Colonial Office be housed elsewhere? One wonders, for instance, how the old India Office is now
114
used. I am not aware to what use it is now put, but it is, as we all know, an enormous building and cannot be required for its original purpose.
Finally, I should like to express agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, in his optimistic view of the likely reaction of this debate upon the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. A year or so ago I had occasion to contact Lord Morrison in connection with a proposal which would have been very deleterious to the aspect of the Tower of London, and I found him a most amenable personality to deal with and very sensible of the importance of preserving the beauties of this great city. I feel sure that the cogency of the arguments which have been put forward this afternoon will have impressed themselves upon him, and I look forward, with the noble Earl, to a favourable reply —perhaps not a reply which will give us all we expect and hope for, but one which will lead to what we desire in the ultimate result.
4.44 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, my observations on the Motion before your Lordships' House have been ticked off one by one during the course of the debate, and therefore I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two. I welcome this opportunity of congratulating sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on a most remarkable maiden speech. In congratulating him, I am under the impression that he is probably, with me, full of partiality and prejudice about this particular part of London, because approximately forty years ago, when the cluster of houses round the Abbey on its South Side was reclaimed from a rather disreputable century, he and I at approximately the same time entered as inhabitants, and we have this district very much at heart. There I spent five very formative years of my life in a school which claims with pride Westminster Abbey as its School Chapel. Now I find myself in your Lordships' House, which has a similar treasured relationship with Westminster Abbey. Thus I am full of prejudice and partiality about anything which affects the Abbey in any way at all.
I should like to refer to the Motion itself, which I wish had stopped at the words "some other site," and not gone

115
on to suggest merely that the present plans should be modified. I cannot support too strongly the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, that there is available great opportunity on both sides of the Thames—I think he mentioned only one—particularly that stretch between Vauxhall Bridge and Lambeth Bridge which, I suggest to your Lordships, could become a fine civic centre of Governmental buildings. Now is the time to plan for the future in that way. It is to me a very important thing that the precincts of the Abbey should not be further impinged upon either by buildings or by people. The grey and green majesty of the Cloisters, the charm of Jerusalem Chamber Steps and of Little Cloisters are in jeopardy from people who now frequent those places, and who are not so much archaeologists or people with an artistic appreciation of these buildings, or even genuine sightseers, but persons who use the Abbey precincts to enjoy an alfresco lunch, to do crossword puzzles or fill in football coupons. If there is another Government office built within a few yards of the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey, the Dean and Chapter will have a great problem with which to deal.
I would refer to the first line of this Motion, which calls attention to recent expressions of public opinion. I submit that public opinion on this matter, not only in Westminster and London or even in the United Kingdom, but throughout the Empire and, indeed, in all civilised countries of the world where the word "Westminster" up to now has certainly been a magic word, runs far more strongly and deeply than has been publicly expressed. I would therefore beg the Government not to plan something for 1951 or 1961, but to take an infinitely broader view and plan for centuries ahead as well as in homage to the centuries which are past.
4.48 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like to start by most sincerely congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his excellent maiden speech, and to say that I do not think he could have chosen a more apposite subject than that of the area round about our Houses of Parliament. I should like to support the noble
116
Lord, Lord Rea, in suggesting that there should be no compromise at all over this matter, and I feel we ought to be adamant that both the Westminster Hospital site that has been cleared, and the old Stationery Office site, should be kept as an open space. It is not, after all, so small a site, when one considers how much has yet to be brought down to ground level. I myself would humbly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as an architect, that the proposed new Colonial building is a good one. But if it is to be placed where at present planned, nobody will be able properly to see it; it will become, like so many other buildings, far too closely surrounded by others; and will be a loss to itself, as well as to the Abbey and the area generally. On that, I find myself in the same difficulty as other noble Lords, that all the fine and sound things have mostly been said. The obvious suggestion is for some site on the other bank of the Thames. After all, it is the policy, rightly, of the Government to give the South Bank increasing status vis-à-vis the North Bank, and obviously there are places on the South Bank where the building could well be placed.
In this debate I cannot help acknow-ledging that my fire over this issue is largely connected with the reading of certain books about Westminster—for instance, Dean Stanley's Memorial of Westminster Abbey, with which I am sure many noble Lords are familiar. One cannot help seeing the very earliest origins of Westminster in Thorney Island, and I think it is right that, as much as possible, we should recover its natural sense of precinct, both the natural sense of precinct and the precinct that first came along in connection with the Abbey and the Benedictine Monks who founded it. In that sense, rather interestingly do we also regard as sacred to us the frontiers of this Thorney Island. These Monks took the whole island, and the frontiers fit with the Architectural Review's plan, "Westminster Regained," for deflecting wheeled traffic altogether out of the area. The Northern sacred frontier is along Great George Street. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, when regarding this idea of unity it must be in the far future, but if we can have this hospital site issue cleared up now, it will be a start. The northern stream that made Thorney Island went along Great George Street.

117
In fact, it went under the present Home Office, and that makes one consider that the very erection of the Home Office building—wh.ch occurred at about the turn of the century I suppose—was the beginning of a form of rot, as regards the presentday atmosphere of Westminster.
The other frontier is along the front of the Central Hall, and so down to the back of the Abbey where the old wall itself exists to-day. My suggestion is that the Westminster Hospital site ought to be brought into the same mood as that of St. James's Park and its lake. Why should there not be small ponds here, where we could see the Abbey most beautifully reflected in all its moods, of grey days and sunny days, and it would be possible to link it with the spirit of the Park?
There is a small point that came to my notice last week when I was in the Central Hall for three days running, as a journalist in connection with the annual meeting of the National Farmers' Union. One of the striking gains since the Westminster Hospital has been demolished is the very fine view of the Abbey from the long window on the staircase going up to the main hall. I think we should keep that view, whether the hall is used by farmers from all the counties or by anybody else.
Lastly, I cannot think that anybody coming from the Colonial Empire would be glad that this site is likely, or is not unlikely, to become a mere building haunted with the clicking of typewriters —which is now one of the largest industries in this country. I am sure that for every reason that noble Lords have put before the House, much better than I have, this site in its entirety must be kept open I should like once again to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his excellent maiden speech.
4.54 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I did not intend to speak when I entered this chamber this afternoon, but I feel that neither this House, nor my noble friend Lord Morrison, ought to be under the impression that the whole of the aesthetic sense of this House is confined to one section of it. I should like noble Lords opposite to feel that some of us on this side feel equally strongly about the desirability of preserving the beauty
118
of this most historic site in Westminster, probably the most historic site in the world. I recognise that an Act of Parliament has been passed for the purpose of acquiring this site, and I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whose maiden speech I very much enjoyed, and whom I should like to congratulate on it, that Parliament was certainly under the impression, when it acquired the site, that it was going to be built on. Although there may not have been anything specific in the Act, Parliament certainly understood that it was not merely buying an open space.
Nevertheless, I do feel that, if at the time representations about the importance of this size, and about the desirability of doing everything we could to preserve the beauty of its buildings, had been made to those responsible, those of us who had some responsibility for the selection of this site would certainly have hesitated and would have been impressed. The fact that those representations were not made at the time is something for which we must all accept some responsibility, but it is no discredit to any of as to say that our aesthetic sense has improved since 1947 —perhaps we are wiser to-day with the loss from time to time of beautiful parts of London and beautiful buildings—and that, if it is not too late, we would earnestly appeal to the Minister of Works to hesitate and to think again.
I am not one of those who would advocate that the whole of this site should be used as an open space. I think one can hardly go to Parliament and ask both Houses to pass a measure for the expenditure of £400,000 for the acquisition of a site to build on, and then say: "We are very sorry. We have bought the site. We do not want to build on it. We want another site." It would not be encouraging to go to Parliament for the purpose of a compulsory acquisition of land if there could be an accusation of some form of misrepresentation. Moreover. I would respectfully point out to the House that, if the Ministry of Works had not come along with this measure, the fate of this site would have been worse than it threatens to be at the present time. It was intended that this should be a block of offices, and if the Colonial Office is an unworthy neighbour

119
of Westminster Abbey then a fortiori a block of offices would have been so. So at least the Ministry of Works must be thanked for having saved us from this even worse fate.
I have nothing to add to the arguments and the representations which have been so eloquently and forcibly made, but I should like to associate myself with the majority of them. I believe that it is possible to erect on this site a building which will meet many of the objections and yet give the Colonial Office what it needs. I would earnestly plead with my noble friend Lord Morrison to ask his right honourable friend to look at this matter again. I realise that that must involve a good deal of delay. It must inevitably mean the preparation of new plans, possibly a task which will mean deferring for some two years the erection of the Colonial Office. But I wonder whether, in the existing conditions, it really is the intention of the Government to proceed with the erection of this building straight away? It may well be—I do not know—that the rearmament to which we are now committed—
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): With regard to that point, may I say that, but for the discussion which arose within the last few weeks, the Ministry of Works were within ten days of calling for tenders for the excavation.
LORD SILKIN: I appreciate that, but of course in the last ten days or so something else has happened, besides the raising of this matter in this House, and I imagine that there will be some curtailment of public building and public expenditure. In these circumstances, it may well be that in any case my noble friend may have had reason to postpone the actual beginning of the construction of the Colonial Office. If that were so, of course, it would mean that the delay would not be so great as it otherwise would, but, as I say, one must recognise that the preparation of new plans might put back the beginning of the construction of the offices for some two years— possibly longer. But, my Lords, I would plead that even two years is not a long time in the history of this country. Once
120
this building is put up it is there for ever; and surely it is worth while hesitating for even that period, in order to do the best we can for this great historic area. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us this afternoon that he will earnestly take into consideration the representations that have been made. I trust that he will not within ten days invite tenders for a start on this work, but that he will give serious consideration to the possibility of putting up an alternative building which will meet most of the objections that have been raised in this House.
5.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I have been greatly impressed by the strength of the case that has been made out by all the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. Therefore I feel bound to rise and, in a few sentences, to associate myself with the Motion that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The proposals in the last speech that we heard, which came from the former Minister of Town and Country Planning and a general supporter of the Government, must in particular carry great weight with us and with the public. It seems to me that probably the right solution would be to set back this building, to have a somewhat smaller building on the same site and to ask the Colonial Office to be satisfied with less commodious premises. I realise that we cannot waste the very large sum which has already been spent, and, much as one would desire to see the whole of this site kept as an open space, I fear that in present circumstances it is hardly practicable. However, I have looked at the model of the area, which is now to be seen in the Library, and it does appear that the area will be a terrible jumble if the present plans are carried out. Possibly the views expressed in your Lordships' House to-day may in a very large degree be met by a modification and not an abandonment of the plans. At all events, that is the suggestion that I would join in pressing upon the noble Lord and his colleagues.
5.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, like the two noble Lords who have just spoken, I came into the House without any intention of taking part in this discussion, and I am afraid that the views which I am

121
going to put forward will not meet with very much acceptance, because the model which has been placed in the library had rather the opposite effect on me to what it had on other noble Lords. Of course, these things are matters of taste, and we know that matters of taste are not matters to be disputed. When the question was raised some time ago and it was suggested that we should have an open space on this site, I felt, as one who has spent a good coal of his life fighting for open spaces, that that was an admirable idea. I must say, however, that, looking at the model, it seems to me impossible to leave an open space on this site with advantage. In parenthesis, I would say that I would not agree with the noble Viscount that we ought not to spend the money—that is, if it were clear beyond a peradventure that it was the right thing in the interests of the noble Abbey and of this historic site to clear the whole thing away and leave an open space. If that were agreed, then. I think, £400,000 is a mere bagatelle in relation to such an object.
It seems to me that, with the Middlesex Guildhall on its present site, to have an open space where the old hospital used to be would be æsthetically to make a grievous blunder. That is the view to which I have come after careful consideration of the model. If the Guildhall could be swept away it would be another matter—and nobody this afternoon has said that the Middlesex Guildhall is going to be regarded in a few years' time as one of the most beautiful buildings of its time, and I am afraid that I have not yet been converted to the view expressed by the most reverend Primate in respect of the Central Hall, though it may, if its towers are completed, be a better place than it is now. But, as it stands, I do not feel that any great value has been added to this site by opening up the view of the Central Hall. I would agree that if it were possible to remove the Middlesex Guildhall (a project which has not, so far as I know, been suggested), and replan the whole of this open space, perhaps with some monuments upon it, so as to get a harmonious re-development of the area, that would be a magnificent scheme. However, I do not know that anybody has yet been prepared to come forward with a scheme like that. As the matter stands at he present time, I feel that it would be a mistake to leave an open space on the site of the old hospital and
122
the Stationery Office. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, suggests that, in effect, we are on the point of desecrating the site; but surely we have all been brought up in a time when the old hospital was there, and our feeling of affection and love of the Abbey and its beauty was developed in surroundings of that sort.
Moreover, I am one of those who feel that a really fine and beautiful building is something which would be a good thing in itself, and especially in this particular part of London. I am not sure that I agree with the view of the proposed Colonial Office expressed in the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, which, like everybody else, I enjoyed enormously. It is difficult for the layman to judge from the elevation which is in the Library how good the proposed Colonial Office will be. My own reaction to it was not quite so enthusiastic as his. But I should like to see a really fine piece of architecture on this site. I believe there is a great deal in what the Fine Art Commission has said about it—namely, that its elevation is too lofty, and that it might be better if it were put somewhat further back. If the Government are prepared to do anything, I think it would be much the better way to proceed on those lines. We know that the Government have in fact been giving much attention to and are very sensible of the importance of this matter. I understand that the Prime Minister himself has within the last few days had more than one meeting about it, which shows that there is great feeling, sympathy and sensitiveness in the Government on matters of this sort. I feel, however, that if a compromise is to be reached, it would best be reached upon lines of the sort I have suggested and which I think will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Silkin.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I want to add just a few sentences. I feel sure that the Government can do æsthetic justice and practical justice and, at the same time, accept a compromise which I believe will satisfy the whole House, not just as a compromise, but on merits, because I believe it is the right thing to do. I cannot, for the life of me, think that the Colonial Office want a building to house 1,300 people. The Colonies become fewer and fewer. When

123
I was Colonial Secretary—and we were not inactive in those days—I am perfectly certain that we could have accommodated the whole of our staff in a building onethird of this size. Certainly there should be no encouragement to proliferate Departments and sub-departments in this way. They cannot possibly require a building of that size. If they say they require it, then they should be taught a salutary lesson in these times, when we are all told, quite rightly, that we must make sacrifices. Let the Government set an example by sacrificing something in the magnitude—indeed, the megalomania—of the size of Government Departments. I am sure this Department could be satisfied completely, or, if you cannot satisfy them, they should be told that they must be satisfied with a building which is considerably smaller.
That being done, it would give ample opportunity to set the site back. I do not share Lord Silkin's view that it would be a reasonable thing to erect no building on this site, nor am I at all convinced that the beauty and the whole æsthetic conception of the area would be enhanced by making this an open site. After all, it is not a completely open site. It is true there will be an open space if you build nothing on it, but then the Middlesex Guildhall, which is an adequate but not a superlatively beautiful building, will be turned into an island in that open space. I believe that the result would be that we should end up not so much by enhancing the Abbey, but by enhancing the Guildhall. Certainly some other buildings which the destruction of the Stationery Office has uncovered would be much better concealed by a new structure.
Is not the practical thing to do in this matter to economise in expenditure? I certainly do not think the building need be started at once. I should not have thought it would take two years to redesign it. I bear in mind that Ministers of Town and Country Planning proceed gradually, like the late Lord Passfield. I have seen buildings erected in America a good deal more quickly than that, and, if I remember rightly, the I.C.I, building further down Millbank, which is quite a good building, was designed and erected in about two years. But I do not think it would matter at all if there were a little delay in erecting this building.
124
Indeed, we must have a reduction in capital expenditure over the next two years and certainly this building need not have very high priority. Therefore I would join in what I believe is the general feeling of the House in appealing to the Government to adopt a solution which would give them the practical result they want—a building of adequate size upon this site. I believe that would be not a mere compromise, but the best solution to the problem of meeting the æsthetic requirements of the situation.
5.13 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, after listening to something like a dozen speeches, no one could have failed, as Lord Samuel has just said, to be impressed with this debate. I must at once say, however, that I am almost as impressed, and a little confused, by the multitude of different suggestions that have emanated from the debate. I have only one complaint about this debate, and it is a very minor one; it was indirectly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Silkin. I thought that I detected in some of the speeches a faint suggestion that the present Government have a lower standard of culture in architecture and fine buildings than have noble Lords in this House. If that impression has gone abroad I want to contradict it immediately. I agree with Lord Silkin that we claim to have as high standards as anyone else in the community in these matters.
May I be allowed to join with others in congratulating Lord Mottistone? I thought that his speech was of more than ordinary interest. He spoke on a subject upon which he is well qualified to speak, and his speech, if I may say so, was also of great interest to many of us who have given lengthy service in one or both Houses of Parliament, and who have unforgettable memories, not only of personal friendship but of the valuable public services so generously given by his late father. As he reminded us (and I was thinking of it before he even mentioned it) I find it interesting to recall that his father was for some time an Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am sure that I am expressing the hope of every noble Lord here in saying that we hope that, if his professional work permits, we may have many opportunities of hearing Lord Mottistone again.

125
The subject which the noble Lord has raised is one which, as he said, and as your Lordships will remember, was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, just before the Christmas vacation. Lord Mancroft has again addressed us to-day, and while I am handing out compliments I hope that he will allow me to congratulate him, not upon his maiden speech but upon an announcement of almost equal importance which I read in The Times recently, and to wish his fiancé and himself good health, good luck, and a happy future. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who were not present on November 21, and did not happen to read the Report of our proceedings then, I thought it might be as well if I summarised briefly what I then said in reply to Lord Mancroft. My difficulty is that after such a long debate I do not want to weary your Lordships by dealing in detail with every point that every speaker has made. But there are one or two outstanding points.
Some noble Lords want this site cleared altogether. Others say, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has just said: "Let us have a compromise and build a smaller Colonial Office on that site." Therefore your Lordships will forgive me if I skim over the points, and try to present to you the situation as it appears to the Government to-day. In the first place. Lord Mottistone seemed to question whether, if an entirely new site had to be found for this building, it would necessarily mean new legislation. I can only say that I would draw his attention to the Public Offices (Site) Act, 1947, and he will see on the front page "An Act to make provision for the acquisition of a site for Public Offices in Westminster."
LORD MOTTISTONE: But it does not say for the Colonial Office; that was my point.
LORD MORRISON: That is so, but I cannot see how it would be possible, with a direction like that in the Title, to assume that the Act refers to anything other than public offices of any kind. What the noble Lord and others have been arguing for is a public open space. Therefore the best advice I can give, out of my own somewhat lengthy experience, is that it would be necessary to have another Act of Parliament before we could turn this site into an open space.
126
The announcement that the Government proposed to acquire the site of the old Westminster Hospital, and to build on that site and on the adjoining Stationery Office site a new building for the Colonial Office, was made as long ago as October 11, 1946. There has never been any question but that a new headquarters for the Colonial Empire is urgently needed, and I am sorry that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, having put some very direct questions to me, has not found it convenient to wait to receive the answers. That is the answer to his first question: that a new Colonial Office is urgently needed. The present Colonial Office is scattered over three different buildings.
When the Public Offices(Site) Act, 1947, which gave the Government power to acquire the Westminster Hospital site for this purpose, was debated in your Lordships' House and in another place the proposed use of the site commanded general approval. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said a few moments ago, and Lord Halifax agreed with him, that we were all to blame for that. There was no opposition at all to the proposal. Lord Mottistone eloquently pointed out, as an excuse for the failure of everybody to recognise what the view would be when the Stationery Office was pulled down; "Well, how were we to know?" I do not know: with the number of people who are experts in this sort of business we should expect them, I think, to have a little more imagination than they evinced over this matter in 1947. The matter was debated not only in your Lordships' House but in another place, and the plans commanded general approval, without question or dissent. There was ready acceptance of the statement made in your Lordships' House by Lord Henderson that:—
"There is no more worthy use for this fine position than as the Headquarters of the Colonial Empire."
I well remember sitting here next to Lord Henderson, when he spoke, and hearing the general applause and approbation with which that sentiment was received. At the same time, the fullest consideration was given to the limits which should be imposed on the size of the new building, and it was open to any interested party, by petitioning one or other of the two Select Committees which considered the Bill, to make their views known.

127
In 1948, a distinguished private architect, who had been commissioned by the Minister of Works to design the new building, prepared his sketch plans, and they were submitted for the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission. Just before the war this body had signified their approval to the plans of a proposed commercial office block on the site which covered it to the full extent permitted under the Westminster Hospital Act, 1913. Subsequently, however, the Commission altered their view as to the proper development of the site, and pressed that the front of the new building should be set back so far as to leave the old site, which had by then been acquired at a cost of over £400,000, almost entirely vacant. A further result of this would have been to make the building too small for the Colonial Office, and thus to prevent the Ministry of Works from using the site for the purpose for which Parliament had authorised its acquisition.
In these circumstances, after consultations between the Ministry of Works, the Treasury, the Colonial Office, the Royal Fine Art Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, a compromise scheme was evolved; the elevations were re-designed, and the building was set back so as to surrender land, worth about £150,000, for public amenities, and to enable important road widening to be carried out, both in Broad Sanctuary and in Princes Street. The size of the building was somewhat reduced, though still large enough to accommodate the Colonial Office, and the Royal Fine Art Commission, while still adhering to their former view that a lesser develop-ment would have been desirable, approved the compromise design as such.
Your Lordships, I am sure, will appreciate that there is a proper time for suggesting important alterations to a major project of this kind. Once the sketch plans have been agreed, much time and money has to be spent on the preparation of the working drawings and bills of quantities, so that a substantial change after the sketch plan stage is bound to involve a good deal of waste of money, as well as delay. With the greatest respect, I suggest to those of your Lordships who are in favour of the replanning or re-siting of the new Colonial Office that the proper time to make these recom-
128
mendations was in 1947, when the Public Offices (Site) Bill was before your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes from that topic, may I ask him a question? He said that it would cost a great deal more money if we now altered the plans. But would hot one result of altering the plans be that there would be a smaller building which would cost less money, and that this saving would have to be set off against the extra expense incurred in architects' fees and so on?
LORD MORRISON: If there were a smaller building, I would agree to the noble Viscount's proposition, provided that the whole of the staff of the Colonial Office could be accommodated in that smaller building.
With regard to the suggestion in the Motion that another site should be chosen, I would only point out, first, that having been authorised by Parliament to acquire this site for the purpose of providing public offices, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works would—as I have already pointed out—require fresh legislation if it were decided to use the site entirely as an open space; and, secondly, that His Majesty's Government have at present no suitable alternative site in view. A great number of sites have been suggested in the debate this afternoon. Some have already been examined, but have been rejected on various grounds. Others have not been examined. I will bring these suggestions to the notice of the Government so that attention can be given to them. To change the site at this late stage would mean a complete replanning of the whole project, involving some years of delay— it has taken four and a half years from the decision to use the Westminster Hospital site to reach the present stage when a contract can shortly be let—and would, of course, involve the Government in the expense of acquiring two sites for one building. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, made the comment that he was hopeful as to what the decision was going to be because he thought that I looked hopeful. I must learn to control my features better.
May I say, with regard to the suggestion that the frontage line of the new building should be set further back, that there are a number of points of view? It

129
has been suggested, for example, that this setting back should be done not so much to afford a more spacious view of Westminster Abbey as to disclose the frontage of the Central Hall, but against this there is another school of thought—or, perhaps I should say, of dissentient opinion. Lord Mottistone said he thought that one day the Central Hall would be acclaimed as an excellent example of the architecture of the period. I am sure he knows that there is another school of thought which does not hold such an elevated opinion of the Central Hall. Indeed, I have heard it said that as an example of good architecture the less one can see of the Central Hall, the better. I am not taking sides in this matter, but merely pointing out that: there are experts on both sides. All I can say on this subject at present is that, in view of the wide public interest shown in this question, His Majesty's Government are at present giving their close consideration to the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Badeley, said that he and his friends did not intend to press for a definite answer to-day. I accept that. I can say only that I will draw the attention of the Government to the suggestions that have been made. I cannot give any hope at all that the Government will look favourably upon the idea of abandoning this site altogether. I can, however, say that the important speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, together with, the new suggestions made, will be brought to their notice. I think I can also say that questions of height, frontage and accommodation are at present under active consideration, and noble Lords well know what that expression means. As soon as a decision is reached by the Government it will be announced.
5.30 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I must not detain you any longer now, because the hour is late. I should, however, like to take the opportunity of thanking all noble Lords who have received me so kindly, and have spoken well of me. I hope that I may do more to deserve your Lordships' kindness. I should like particularly to thank Lord Badeley for speaking about me in such kindly terms. I wish, also, to express my gratitude to Lord Morrison for his courteous reply to my Motion. There
130
are one or two points in his speech with which I do not agree, but I do not think that this is the time to go into them and to seek to answer them, in view of his remark that the Government would like more time to reconsider the matter in detail. That, I think, is the most important point. If they will do that, and will reconsider the matter, I will gladly ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion now, on the understanding that the model will be exhibited so that everyone can see what we mean, and that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter again when the Government have their proposals ready.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIVERPOOL EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
LLOYD'S BILL [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL [H.L.]
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
OXFORD MOTOR SERVICES BILL [H.L.]
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
UTTOXETER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a

U.S.A. AND FORTHCOMING COLOMBO CONFERENCE
LORD CALVERLEYasked His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the announcement of the State Department in Washington that the U.S.A. is to be represented at the next Commonwealth Conference in Ceylon, the Government will clarify the situation by stating exactly the position of the U.S.A. at this Conference in order to avoid misunderstanding.
LORD OGMORE: The meeting which is due to open in Colombo at the official level on February 12 is not solely a Commonwealth Conference. The Report

131
of the Commonwealth Consultative Committee, which met last in London in September, stressed the hope that it would be possible for non-Commonwealth countries to take part fully in the Colombo Plan in the very near future. Indeed, representatives of the non-Commonwealth countries in the South and South-East Asian area attended the London meeting as observers. As in the case of the London meeting, invitations to the forth-
132
coming meeting of the Consultative Committee in Colombo have been sent to Burma, Indonesia, Thailand and the Associated States of Indo-China, as well as to the Commonwealth countries concerned. In addition, the Ceylon Government have invited the United States and Philippines.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before six o'clock.