Lords Sitting of 3 December 1953

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Templemore—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NATIONAL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS) BILL [H.L.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for persons claiming to have conscientious objections to performing part-time service under Part I of the National Service Act, 1948. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask two Questions and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for his courtesy in taking them at short notice. The first is this: To ask Her Majesty's Government under what legal power the Kabaka of Buganda was deported.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the regulations providing for deportation were made by the Governor of Uganda under the Emergency Powers Order in Council, 1939, and an order was then made under these regulations.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What is the date of that order?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: 1939.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is the general power. When was the order made under the emergency powers—recently, or has it always existed?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: A few days ago, when trouble occurred, the Governor declared an emergency in that part of Uganda known as Buganda.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The fact is that the Governor privately took steps to deport the Monarch without informing Parliament, which was subsequently told that the decision was final and could not be altered.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That is quite wrong. The Governor took the emergency powers granted to him under the Order in Council of 1939, and introduced them when the Kabaka was deposed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Why was it, first of all, that the Attorney-General said that this was done under the Agreement of 1900? That is the first point. Secondly, why was not Parliament informed that the Governor had suddenly made this order, under the old powers, to do this act which he contemplated?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Parliament was informed by my right honourable friend, when he made a statement in another place a few days ago giving the House full information about the decision which had been reached in the case of the Kabaka.
LORD BURDEN: May I ask the noble Earl whether the regulations to which he has referred were regulations made to deal with war-time conditions—seeing that the date is 1939—and whether those war-time regulations are being stretched to cover peace-time conditions?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think not. The Order in Council was made on March 9, 1939.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We are not speaking about the regulations of 1939—we are talking about the order. Was the order laid before this House, or was this House informed a few days ago that such an order under the old regulations existed?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I recommend to the noble Viscount that he should examine the Emergency Powers Order in Council which was passed in 1939, where all those points are particularly mentioned.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I may be quite mistaken, but do I understand that the power of deportation existed in 1939, or that the power to make an Order for Deportation existed in 1939 and was not used until a few days ago by the making of such an order?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: When the Governor has made an order under the Emergency Powers Order in Council, 1939, Paragraph 6 (2) says that
"the regulations may make provision for the detention of persons and the deportation and exclusion of persons from the territory"
and the Order in Council refers, amongst other territories, to the Uganda Protectorate.
EARL JOWITT: It would be useful if we saw all these documents, including the recent order of a few days ago. Are they available in the Library of your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am sure that the Emergency Powers Order in Council of 1939 is in the Library. If it is not, I will certainly make certain that the noble and learned Earl receives a Copy.
EARL JOWITT: But I want to see the order made a few days ago under which action was taken. Can we see that?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Governor would make this by a Proclamation. I will not say that the Proclamation has yet been received at the Colonial Office, but the moment it is, the noble Earl shall have it.
EARL JOWITT: We shall have it as soon as possible?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does that mean that the Governor is empowered to make an order and depose the reigning chief without any consultation with this House, or even with the Colonial Office?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Viscount knows sufficient about the art of government to know that the Governor is in full touch with the Colonial Office from day to day. We were perfectly aware that the Governor was going to make a Proclamation under the Emergency Powers Order in Council of 1939.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Perhaps the noble Earl would inform the Attorney-General of these facts, of which last night, in another place, he was totally ignorant.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thought that the Attorney-General was extraordinarily good last night.

REINSTATEMENT OF KENYA OFFICIAL
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question of which I have given private notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have approved the reinstatement in the public service of a Kenya official at present undergoing sentence for assaults on African prisoners.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my right honourable friend has called for a full report from the Kenya and Tanganyika Governments, and until this has been received I am not in a position to make a further statement.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I observed from a report in The Times this morning that the decision had apparently been made locally; but that the Governor should review it is entirely satisfactory.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER, &C.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS, 1953
3.13 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD) rose to move, That the Police Pensions Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 18th of November last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Regulations are made under Sections 1 and 3 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, and in accordance with the requirements of that Act my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has consulted the Police Council, who

927
have expressed themselves in agreement with the draft regulations. The object of these regulations is to provide increased pensions for the widows of policemen who are murdered while acting in the execution of their duty.
The present police pension regulations provide a common level of pensions for the widow whose husband is killed in the execution of his duty, irrespective of the circumstances of his death; and the amount of pension payable is a sum which, after taking into account certain payments from National Insurance sources, must be not less than one-third of his pay. The Government consider that these existing provisions of the police pension scheme provide a reasonable level of widow's pension in most cases where a policeman dies as the result of an injury received in the execution of his duty. But, as noble Lords will be aware, there have been cases in the past year or two where policemen, acting in the execution of their duty, have been murdered by armed criminals; and the Government have considered very carefully whether they would be justified in proposing increased pensions for the widows of policemen killed in these exceptional circumstances.
As your Lordships will appreciate, there are obvious difficulties in the way of such a course. In the first place, it can be argued that the widow of a police officer who is drowned while making a gallant attempt to save life—or, for that matter, is killed accidentally on point duty—is no less deserving than the widow whose husband is shot dead by a criminal when the police officer is trying to make an arrest. In the second place, it can be argued that there are other occupations where a man might be killed in the course of his calling in circumstances which would justify special consideration for his widow. Nevertheless, after careful consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that policemen who die as a result of an attack which is intrinsically likely to cause death are in a special category, and that special provision for their widows ought to be made.
I should like to give our reason for this. In carrying out his duty a policeman is subject to two restraints which are peculiarly characteristic of British police methods. He himself is rarely armed,
928
and there is a strong tradition that his methods, even with the most worthless members of the community, should be reasonable and fair. If he uses undue force and oppressive means, he is not only answerable at law but is liable to bring discredit on the British police force. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to see any alteration in these restraints on police methods, which have their own effect on the attitude of the criminal community. But, of course, a policeman may at any time in the course of his duty have to deal with an aggressive, and possibly an armed, criminal; and in a very small number of cases he may, as a result of these restraints, be exposed to exceptional risk. The Government feel, therefore, that it is vitally important that the police officer should know that if he meets his death in dealing with an armed criminal, the best possible provision will be made for his dependants. It is with this end in view that these Regulations have been prepared.
The purpose of the Regulations is simple. Where a police officer dies in the exceptional circumstances prescribed by the Regulations his widow will be entitled, after account has been taken of the customary insurance benefits, to a pension of half his average pension able pay at the time of his death, instead of the existing pension of not less than one-third of that pay. In figures, this means that, in future, the minimum pension of the widow of any police constable killed by an armed criminal will be about £200 a year. I am sure your Lordships will be glad to note that, as well as giving these pensions in future cases, the Regulations have been drafted in such a way that some increase can also be given to the widows of officers who have been killed by armed criminals in the last year or two, and whose deaths provoked the discussion which has resulted in these draft Regulations. That is all I need say, I think. I commend the Regulations to your Lordships in the belief that their approval will show that Parliament intends to take every possible step to strengthen the forces of law and order in their difficult struggle against the criminal.
Moved, That the Police Pensions Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 18th of November last, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the House will have heard with great interest the noble Lord's statement moving this Motion, and all your Lordships will be glad that increased provision is to be made for the dependants of police officers who lose their lives in these particular circumstances. We followed the ease made by the noble Lord and the arguments which led the Government to their present conclusions. I think it would be too much to expect noble Lords on this side to give an unqualified agreement to this singling out of victims of very special circumstances; but certainly anything that conduces to the morale of police officers who may find themselves in these circumstances is all to the good; and we have no hesitation at all in agreeing to these proposals.
There is, however, one other aspect of the matter which the noble Lord did not mention, and upon which we should like some information. This is a concession to a certain class of State servant who may be killed on duty. Is there any department of the Government which surveys the whole field of public servants who lose their lives on duty and correlates the rate of pension allotted to each? How, for example, does the rate of pension allotted in these Regulations compare with the pension allotted to the widow of a soldier, a sailor or an airman killed on duty? This is almost the equivalent of being killed in action. It would be going too far, perhaps, to suggest that there should be some correlation between the pensions awarded to State servants killed on duty and the awards made to men in industry engaged in hazardous occupations—for example, fishermen or miners—but the problem is there: how the pensions for servants, not only of the public but also of corporations and other non-official services, should be made equitable. That is a point about which I should like the noble Lord to say something if he can. Subject to that, we have no objection and will support these Regulations.
3.21 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord, not about the wider range of public servants but about the interpretation of the Regulations as they apply to the police force. The noble Lord, in introducing the measure, used the word
930
"murder," but that word does not appear anywhere in the Regulations before us. "Murder" would mean setting out with an intent to kill. What happens in the case of a constable who comes across a burglar, or a "smash-and-grab" person, engaged in his illegal activity, and who, in the ensuing struggle, suffers injuries from which he subsequently dies? Does he come within the ambit of this present Order? Or take the case which has been mentioned, that of the police officer on traffic control who is knocked down and killed by a motor car. What happens there? It seems to me that this Order is too narrowly drawn. Surely, if a man loses his life in the discharge of his duty, then he is entitled, without consideration of anything but that fact, to the full benefit of this proposal. I would ask the noble Lord what will happen in the cases which I have cited.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I ask one further question? Who will bear the cost of these pensions? One hopes that they will not be a very large amount in aggregate, but will the cost of these pensions be added, in the Metropolitan area, to the bulk sum which is afterwards precepted on the local authorities? I know that the local authorities within the Metropolitan Police Area are constantly worried at the ever-increasing amount of precept for the cost of the police. Is this just another instance where the Central Government are being—I agree quite rightly—generous, but generous at the expense of the local authorities?
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I think all these observations show this: that, whilst we agree to these Regulations, we are a little doubtful whether they are quite logical. My noble friend Lord Ammon has given several illustrations to which the noble Lord is to reply in a moment, and we can draw even refinements on that. Take the case of a police officer who is in a chase after a "smash-and-grab" raid when, to do his duty at all, he has to drive his car at a reckless speed, in an endeavour to catch up with the fellow he is chasing. In the course of that chase, he may have an accident, and may be killed. That man is killed, not as the result of murder, or anything of that sort, but in an endeavour to apprehend a criminal. It seems a rather fine distinction to say that the latter man

931
should not get the pension and that the man who is murdered should. The question that is agitating the minds of my noble friends, and I confess, my own mind, too, is this. Though we welcome the fact that these policemen should get this extra money, ought not this provision, logically, to be extended? Is there really any stopping ground between saying, "This must extend to any policeman who, in the course of his duty, loses his life." I should also be interested to hear the answer which the noble Lord makes to the pertinent question asked by my noble friend Lord Lucan: how the pension of a police officer in those circumstances will compare with the pension of a man of comparable rank in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force who is killed in action. We should all like to know that. It is important, so far as we can, to have a sort of co-ordinated scale all through. I hope the noble Lord can answer these questions.
LORD REA: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Earl, and I think I express the opinion of us all when I say that the object of these Regulations is obviously commendable. I am, however, a little uneasy about the method of implementing it: tacking these benefits on to the pensions scale, rather than making it, as in the Services, a posthumous award, in the form of a medal with some financial attachment to it. Could the noble Lord explain what has led the Government to differentiate in this rather peculiar way? To put it quite crudely, from the widow's point of view the policeman who is murdered and the policeman on point duty who is killed by a drunken motorist are equally dead.
LLOYD LLOYD: My Lords, I will, to begin with, deal with the general proposition that was put to me by the noble and learned Earl. I think he will agree, first of all, with what we are trying to do, and that he will also agree that it is difficult in a case like this to know exactly where to draw the line. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I may say that the reason we have done this in the form of a pension is that, if the reward were to be related to some other kind of posthumous award, there might be no certainty about the posthumous award itself, whereas the essence of our proposal is that the police
932
officer should act in the certainty that his dependants, if he is killed in the exceptional circumstances of his duty, will have special provision. I am quite unashamed in saying that I think that is right, for the police officer does work in exceptional circumstances; in fact, I can think of nobody else who has the restraints imposed upon him that the police officer has. After all, the soldier is allowed to shoot back, but the police officer is not.
To come now to the actual terms of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, and by the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, about the way in which these Regulations will work, I would say that the Regulations are not too narrow; on the contrary, I think they are on the whole drawn very wide. I will try to explain what I mean. We considered fully the possibility of linking the new provision to cases of officers murdered—I use the word "murdered" advisedly—in the execution of their duty, but we found there was serious objection to this. These pensions have to be administered by the police authority, and it seemed to us undesirable—I am sure the noble and learned Earl will agree with this—that the police authority should form an opinion as to whether a death was in law murder. They ought not to form in any case an opinion which is inconsistent with the determination of a criminal court, and if they were to form an opinion and the criminal court later found otherwise, that opinion would have to be modified and possibly a pension that had already been awarded might have to be terminated. In the regulations, therefore, the word used is not "murdered" but "attacked," which is wider than "murdered."
On the other hand, we felt that there would be objections to making the award dependent entirely on the result of criminal proceedings. Quite apart from the delay, there might be no proceedings—the offender might have committed suicide, or he might have died. Even if there were proceedings, a verdict that a certain person was not guilty of murder would not establish the fact that the dead police officer had not been murdered. We did not, therefore, want to tie the decision to the result of criminal proceedings. We found that the Regulations could not satisfactorily incorporate any express reference to murder, and the form of

933
words chosen provides an independent test which a police authority can properly apply to these cases. The actual form of words does not bring in any judicial concept at all, nor does it make it necessary for the police authority to consider whether there was murderous intent on the part of the attacker. I say all this to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, because he rather suggested that this Regulation was very narrowly drawn, to exclude the majority of cases. I say, on the contrary, that it is very widely drawn, to give the police authority every possibility of considering each case on its merits.
When we come down to the individual cases which he and the noble and learned Earl cited, frankly I do not think it would be fair for them to expect me to be tied to any particular case to-day. Earlier this week there was mentioned in another place the case in which a policeman, in trying to prevent a "smash and grab" escape, jumped on to a car, and the "smash and grab" raiders then deliberately ran him into another vehicle to try and throw him off. I am not going to say anything about that case one way or another beyond this—that I think that if that were considered an attack, and if it could be defined as an attack with murderous intent, the Regulation would give enough latitude for that case to be considered.
I think we should make a mistake to-day if we tried to go beyond general principles and to fix an exact dividing line. The Regulations give a very wide definition to the police authority, and within that definition, which I have explained, your Lordships must leave it to the police authority to decide, after hearing all the appropriate evidence in criminal proceedings, whether they would be justified in paying such a pension. Obviously, there are cases in which no question would arise, where clearly the officer had been shot or murdered, as in the recent case of two young criminals. In that case, there was no doubt that the policeman had been murdered. But there will be other cases where even eminent lawyers might find it difficult to say exactly whether a policeman was murdered. These Regulations give the police authority very wide latitude in the matter and I feel that we should do best to leave it to the good sense of the police authority to award pensions in a charitable and sensible way.
934
Then there was a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, in regard to comparisons. He asked me whether there was any body which co-ordinated all pensions throughout the public service. He did not give me notice of that question and I am not ashamed to say that I do not know the answer; but I have never heard of one. He next asked whether I could give a comparison, for example, between police pensions and pensions in the other services. The answer is, simply, that I cannot, because they are not computed on the same basis, and therefore, so far as I know, no true comparison could be worked out. But I was certainly impressed by what he said, and the Government will bear it in mind. A good purpose might well be served by doing something on the lines he has suggested.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There was the point raised by Lord Burden, as to the cost. Could the noble Lord say something about that?
LORD LLOYD: Yes, certainly; I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My noble friend Lord Burden has been called away to a Committee meeting.
LORD LLOYD: The answer is that the local authority pay 50 per cent. and the Exchequer pay 50 per cent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1953
3.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I do not think I need add anything to what my noble friend Lord Lloyd has said. These Regulations apply to Scotland in identically the same way as to England. Public opinion has been greatly disturbed by the number of cases in which policemen have been brutally attacked and in which it has been impossible to pay to the dependants the kind of compensation which public opinion felt to be right. These Regulations attempt to help in that way, and therefore I hope that your Lordships will agree to them in relation to Scotland as you have in relation to England. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 18th of November last, be approved.—(The Earl of Home.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, the instance that was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in dealing with the Regulations for England, was the case on which I wanted to found a question. It was raised in another place by my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has exactly paraphrased (if I may use what is, I am afraid, a contradiction in terms) the case of a motorist who was trying to evade the law, and, in trying to stop him, a policeman was killed by being run against another car. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has indicated, that he thinks that in such a case the police authority would have power under these Regulations to award a pension, and as the noble Earl, Lord Home, has said that the Regulations are to apply equally to Scotland as to England, I am perfectly satisfied that the Government's intention is that the case cited by my right honourable friend in another place is covered.
LORD LLOYD: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, except to say that that case was mentioned in rather general terms. I said that in my opinion the powers were contained in the Regulations in the way they are framed. That is, if all the circumstances were appropriate the case could fall within the Regulations. But I should not like it to go out that they definitely applied to a case which was put very vaguely, and one in which a great many circumstances have to be taken into account to decide whether it was really murder or only an accident. I can say no more than that if all the circumstances definitely pointed to a murderous intent, then I think the case would fall within the definition of the Regulation; but I should prefer to leave it to be judged on the individual case, because I believe it is impossible to draw a line without knowing the full facts of a particular case.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, in the light of what has been said by the noble Lord, I am quite satisfied to leave each case to be judged on its merits. This is
936
not a big matter, although it is important. It was indicated in another place that the number of widows affected since the end of the war was in Scotland two and South of the border nine. So that from the point of view of the cost of making what amounts to an improvement in police conditions, this does not involve a very great sum. I am very glad indeed that there should be the will and the wish to improve the service conditions of policemen who do difficult and sometimes irksome work, and, in the vast majority of cases, do it with cheerfulness and goodwill. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that I have had a good deal to do with the police. As a matter of fact, from time to time I have been looked after by them when I have been carrying out important duties, and it has been a pleasure to note the attention which they pay to their work. Many of them I know personally, and, speaking of them generally, I look upon them as a valuable body of men who are certainly well worthy of Un improvement of this kind in their service conditions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill. May I say at the outset how glad I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, in a more prominent place than usual on the Opposition Benches. I am sorry, however, for the cause of his change of position, and I hope that if he sees Lord Morrison he will tell him how much all your Lordships hope that he will be fully restored to health very soon.
The purposes of this Bill are two: first, to establish the proposals which were outlined lately to your Lordships in the Food and Drugs Bill for England and Wales—proposals the main part of which this Bill applies to Scotland—and, secondly, to consolidate the law of Scotland as it applies to the adulteration and handling of food. Your Lordships have so recently had the advantage of a full explanation of the English Bill from my

937
noble friend Lord Woolton that I need do no more than remind you of the main provisions included in the Scottish Bill. The Bill makes clear that the question of whether or not a food is injurious to health must be decided not only by reference to the immediate harm which it may do, but to the long-term effect sit may have on health. The Bill takes power to call for information from manufacturers as to new substances which may be used in the preparation of foods, and it proposes steps to improve standards of care and cleanliness in the handling of food. I think that all these main objectives were welcomed by your Lordships when the English Bill was adopted. Here in this Bill they are identical and no doubt will be equally welcome.
A short acquaintance with the complications of the existing Statute which we are operating in Scotland will, I think, convince your Lordships of the necessity for overhaul. We act, for instance, so far as the adulteration of foods is concerned, under the Food Act, 1928, the Public Health Act, 1897, and the Burgh Police Act, 1892. So far as legislating on food hygiene is concerned, we have to use Section 8 of the English Act of 1938, a provision which applies to Scotland, and that provision in itself derives from a previous Act of 1907. It has been possible to make important regulations and to achieve progress under this hotchpotch of legislation, but it has not been as easy as it should be, and this Bill sets out to make regulations which we hope will be at once more effective and more clear. The public who are interested in clean and safe food, can, I think, be assured that the powers are in this Bill to achieve it, while the obligation which lies upon the Minister to consult representative organisations before regulations are made should secure that regulations, when drafted, are drafted in a practical and acceptable form.
The 1938 Act in England provided that where there are cases of food poisoning the medical practitioner should notify the medical officer of health. That has been a very useful power, and indeed it went further, because the medical officer of health, once he is notified by the medical practitioner, can then take steps to trace the food poisoning causes to their source, and take any action which he thinks fit to dispose of the poisonous food. And otherwise he can do anything
938
which he thinks necessary. We have, then, put into this Bill those clauses which enable the medical officer of health to act on information supplied by a general practitioner. I hope that this Bill will be looked upon as something much more than a punitive measure. We need not be—and indeed we do not intend to be—too tender with the deliberate offender, but the Bill will succeed really only in so far as it succeeds in improving knowledge and in educating the public as to the virtues of clean food and the practical ways in which it can be achieved. It is on this basis, therefore, that I ask your Lordships for your approval to this Bill, and I beg that you will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
3.46 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I be allowed to say just one word which has no special reference to this Scottish Bill? I do not need to deal with the excellence or otherwise of this Bill when we are lucky enough to be able to call upon the services of Lord Mathers in such a matter. I should, however, like to put a suggestion to your Lordships—and I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to take notice of this if he will. I am making no attack on the Government about this matter, but I have noticed a tendency recently to introduce Bills, of which this is a sample, the object of which is to amend and consolidate. In fact the Explanatory Memorandum of this measure begins with the words:
"This Bill amends and consolidates the Scottish Statutes. …"
I venture to think that that is rather art inconvenient thing to do, and for this reason. If the House is to perform its functions properly it clearly must criticise intelligently if it can. Therefore noble Lords must really get down to what is in a Bill, and it is extremely difficult to do that if we are under the necessity of trying to work out what the Bill does and if we get a confusion between what is amendment and what is consolidation. It would not matter so much if the amending clauses were printed in some different kind of ink from the other clauses, or some other system of that sort were adopted. But as it is, Bills of this kind are a hotch-potch, and we are unable at first to recognise what is consolidation

939
and what is amendment. We have worked out in the Lord Chancellor's Office an excellent system of carrying through Consolidation Bills, and the Lord Chancellor is given power, in conjunction with the Speaker, to authorise certain amendments amending minor matters. In my experience, these Bills have gone through without any Parliamentary controversy or anything of that sort. All that is presented is a Bill which is merely consolidating the existing law, with such minor amendments as there may be, and the matter goes through.
I have not given much time to this particular Bill, and I do not know what is new and what is old in it, and I certainly would not suggest that Scotland is a worse offender in the matter to which I refer than England. I should like to give an illustration arising out of the Protection of Birds Bill which we had under consideration a few days ago. I saw in that Bill a clause which stated that it shall be a criminal offence to import live or dead quail. I made researches and I found that there is already a prohibition on the importation of live quail but no prohibition about dead quail. So, when looking at an innocent clause like that one does not realise whether one is dealing with the existing law, with regard to which one rather adopts one attitude, or with a new phase of the law with regard to which a rather more critical attitude might well be taken. While making no sort of attack whatever on this Bill or the Government, and not wanting to stand between the noble Earl and his Bill, I do suggest to the noble Earl and his colleagues that this is an inconvenient practice.
I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in particular, if he will, to consider whether there is any substance in what I say. I would much rather we should take two steps. That is to say, let the noble and learned Lord bring in a Bill (I am not talking about this Bill but a future one) showing what amendments he wants to make in the law, and then, having made those amendments, bring in a Consolidation Bill, so that we may know exactly where we stand. In that way we shall have to make a case for the amendments. I venture to raise this point in no hostile spirit whatever, but because this is not a very convenient practice. I should be most
940
grateful to the noble Earl opposite if he would look at this question and try to see that we do not have this sort of thing again, because it makes it difficult for us to do our duty in criticising the Bill.
3.51 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I should like to acknowledge the kindly references to myself made by the noble Earl, Lord Home. I consider it a happy circumstance that, when I am first invited to speak from this Box, I have the noble Lord as my opposite number. The noble Earl the Leader of my Party has made several observations not pertaining to the substance of the Bill. I am sure he is wise in the consideration he has given to the points he has raised.
Here is a Bill for Scotland which, as found so often in the past in another place when a Scottish Bill has followed an English Bill on a similar subject, is superior to the English Bill. This Bill cannot be attacked on the ground of the attack which was made on the English Bill last week by my noble friend Lord Silkin, who said that it was one of the worst examples of legislation by reference he had ever seen. Here is a straightforward Bill, clearly indicating the position with which it intends to deal and giving the Secretary of State wide powers to see that the health and interests of our people will be protected in respect of the purity and suitability of food and the methods of its presentation for sale. I think it is convenient to have one comprehensive Statute instead of having to refer to several Acts of Parliament. On the basis of this Bill it will be possible for the Secretary of State to frame regulations anew, if necessary, in order to cover the whole realm dealt with by the Bill.
I look upon Part IV of the Bill as important. It deals with the administration by the Secretary of State, and the method of enforcement of the regulations that he will introduce, bringing up-to-date, no doubt, the regulations that already exist. It will be possible for port authorities to be designated and for such authorities to have the same powers as statutory authorities. It is good to know that the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, with his wide view of the needs of the situation, will have validity beyond the scope of the local by-

941
laws. Although most local authorities already have by-laws, it will now be possible for the regulations made by the Secretary of State to bring about a general improvement in the whole position. This is an important Bill. I am glad that in introducing it the Minister of State talked about the necessity for educating public opinion, because it seems to me that along that line there is the greatest possible chance of having the preparation and handling of foods put on a proper basis in Scotland. In my judgment, the Bill is a sound and comprehensive one, and we look forward to the regulations that will be made by the Secretary of State following the passing of this Bill into law. I have pleasure in welcoming the Bill and saying that, so far as noble Lords on these Benches are concerned, there will be no hindrance placed in the way of its passage into law.
3.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to say a word, not in relation to the Bill, which I regard as excellent and which has been fully and eloquently explained by the noble Earl the Minister of State, but in regard to the general question, which I think is very important, raised by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition. As I understand it, his view is that in a Bill of this nature we should be able to distinguish clearly between that Part of the Bill which amends other measures and that Part which consolidates other measures. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl in that view. I think I am right in saying that his opinion is that we should have two Bills—an amending Bill and then a Consolidation Bill. But I am a little doubtful whether, in that case, we should get the Consolidation Bill. I want to get the best of both worlds, as we all do. If it were possible, when a Bill like this is introduced, or a Bill like the Protection of Birds Bill, referred to by the noble Earl, I should prefer to see incorporated either in the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill or in a separate White Paper, a clear explanation of which Parts of the Bill amend previous measures and which Parts relate to consolidation. If that is possible—and I do not see why it should not be—I hope the Government will consider it.
4.0 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I have nothing of importance to add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Mathers. When I looked at the explanatory Memorandum of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill and compared it with the Memorandum to this Bill, it appeared to me clear that whereas the English amending Bill had the purpose of amending the previous Acts named, this Bill, as the Memorandum says, "amends and consolidates the Scottish statutes. …" In that sense, I can understand the approval with which our medical officer of health told me that this Bill brought the Scottish law into line with pre-existing English law. I cannot say that that was a wholly pleasurable thing to hear, but it made clear in my mind what was intended. When the Parliamentary Bills Committee went through the Bill in Glasgow the other week, only two points of minor importance were raised. The first concerned Clause 2 (3), which excepts drugs from the application of Clause 2 (1). One wonders whether that is not merely a drafting oversight, because if the offence is one which concerns food and drugs, why should drugs be excluded in subsection (3)? Perhaps the noble Earl will look at that point. The other point was in relation to Clause 58, which provides that expenses incurred by the operation of this Act "shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament." What Glasgow is concerned to know is whether they will be able to recoup themselves for the large amount of additional expenditure which they may incur when this Bill becomes an Act. I know that that is the usual attitude adopted by municipalities, but I see no reason why it should not be voiced. It is certainly a point on which all the local authorities in Scotland would be glad to have some assurance.
Finally, I should like to say that I was interested to read the able and informative speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, made when he dealt with the English amending Bill. He dealt there, I thought, in arresting language with the importance of this particular measure, referring to the change in the social habits of the people of this country, its effect on their feeding habits, and soon. The noble Earl, Lord Home, in the final remarks of his speech this afternoon, touched upon what is probably the crux

943
of the whole matter. It is not so much that the Government are now taking greater powers to examine the premises, the utensils and the composition of foods, as they are doing by this Bill, but that we should try and educate the general public, not only those who handle the food but even the persons who consume it, in the importance of personal hygiene. It is only in that way that we can get the higher standard of cleanliness in our food, and in our habits towards our food, which is so much needed to-day. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.
4.3 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not want to pursue the point which was raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, except to say that, having spent a considerable time in the case of the English Bill annotating the Statutes which were amended by it, I am pleasantly relieved to find that I have not to go through all that labour in order to ascertain what the Scottish Bill really means. However, they have their own ways of dealing with things in Scotland, and I hope that the English will not interfere with it too much. I welcome the introduction of this Bill quite warmly, although I do not consider that it goes far enough. So far as the question of food hygiene is concerned, I will say only that it is obviously desirable that the standards of cleanliness and hygiene which are now well known and commonly practised should be observed in all establishments where food is handled or prepared. In that respect, I think the provisions in the Bill are excellent.
But the most interesting part of the Bill seems to me to be contained in the first six or seven clauses. Clause 1 not only prohibits the addition of substances to food, and the abstraction of constituents from food so as to render it injurious to health, hut, for the first time, recognises that the processing or treatment of food, which is now so common for a great variety of purposes, may also render it injurious to health. The Bill, as the noble Earl who introduced it quite rightly pointed out, strengthens the law by making one of the considerations to which regard shall be had in determining
944
whether an article of food has been rendered injurious to health or not, the cumulative effect of partaking of that article of food, or of articles of a similar nature. This is extremely important, because of the use of synthetic dyestuffs, flavouring materials and other substances in the processing or preparation of food. It is now quite well known, for example, that a number of chemicals, such as most, if not all, aniline dyes, if partaken over a long period, are carcinogenic, and the increase in the prevalence of cancer and the large number of deaths which occur lend particular point to the importance of looking to the long-term effects of imbibing such articles. There are a great many other chemicals which are used, such as insecticides in the treatment of food while growing, or for purposes of storage, and bleaching and other agents used in the preparation of food, which are chemical substances the use of which is quite novel and about which it is difficult to tell what the long-term results are going to be.
I am glad that this subject has now been put into a Parliamentary Bill, and I hope that it will so strengthen the law. However, there are some defects in the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill. First of all, although it refers to the extraction of constituents of food, and prohibits that so far as it renders the food injurious to health, it does not deal with the case in which the nutritive quality of the food is diminished—and it may be much diminished—by the abstraction of nutritive elements, and where, in fact, the residue which is left and which is sold to the public as a foodstuff may have some of the most important elements taken out altogether. One of the classic examples of this—I know there are those who have differing views—is the abstraction of the germ of wheat out of the wheat when it is being milled. The germ is used to a considerable extent for the purpose of making vitamin preparations which are then sold to the public at high prices in order to remedy the injury which has been caused to their health by the abstraction of this important constituent of the wheat grain. That is an illustration of the kind of thing which may very well happen and which, in the broadest sense at any rate, I think is injurious to health, although whether

945
it would be so held for the purpose of this particular clause may well be somewhat doubtful.
As I said just now, attention is directed to the cumulative effect of consuming in small quantities the things which are added to food in its preparation or processing. The test which is made under subsection (5) of the Bill is what the probable effect will be upon a person of normal health. I do not know what the Government intend to be understood by "normal health." It is a phrase which does not appear to me to have any precise meaning. If it intended to imply a person in good health who is not suffering from any disease or bodily impairment, then I would draw the noble Earl's attention to a fact, with which I hope we are all quite familiar as a result of the statistics published by the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and other statistics which have been collected, that, judged by that standard, the majority of the population are not in normal health. It is a matter for serious consideration what the meaning of this phrase is, and whether it implies that it would be quite lawful to sell a foodstuff which had been treated in a manner which rendered it injurious to a person whose health was not perfect, and that the sale only of a foodstuff which would be injurious to somebody in perfect health would be prohibited. Those who are old—and the old are becoming a very large fraction of the population—and whose health, broadly speaking, is by no means perfect, are entitled to protection, I would submit, just as much as anybody else.
The next criticism which I wish to make of this Bill—and it is a criticism, of course, of the existing legislation as well—is that the onus of proof that an article of food has been rendered injurious to health is thrown upon the local authority as an enforcement agency, or else is thrown upon the consumer under those provisions where the consumer is given a remedy himself. In fact, it is quite impossible in most cases for the consumer to discharge the onus of proof in a subject which is so complicated as this, where it is difficult to disentagle the effects of various articles of food which have been eaten and the effects of a whole complex of circumstances which are capable of affecting the health of any individual. With all respect to those who
946
have drafted this Bill, I suggest that the law requires to be strengthened, and that in those cases where synthetic chemicals, for example, are added to foodstuffs—things which have never been used as foodstuff before—there should be an obligation upon the manufacturer or upon the vendor to show that those articles, or the treatments to which the food has been subjected, are not injurious to health.
I submit that on simple scientific grounds there is a prima facie assumption that something which is not a natural article of food, and which has not been tested by the practical experience of mankind over a long period in consuming it, is to be suspect. I say that, I think, justifiably, because human beings, like all other living creatures, are the product of a long evolution and have been conditioned to the circumstances which have arisen during that evolution. It is a well-known scientific fact that evolutionary changes take place extremely slowly. They occupy tens or hundreds of thousands of years before their results become particularly noticeable, and it is therefore perfectly clear that if new articles of diet are introduced of an entirely unknown nature there cannot have been any evolutionary adaptment to them. Therefore they should be regarded with suspicion and should not be allowed to be introduced as articles of commerce and sold to the public in their foodstuffs unless it has been demonstrated that they are innocuous.
I think in that respect the Bill is extremely defective. These matters are becoming most serious because of the hundreds of new chemicals which have been introduced as part of articles of food, sometimes in substitution for natural constituents which have been abstracted out of them, and sometimes as flavouring, colouring or sweetening matters in order to make something which in itself is not attractive more attractive to the consumer than it would otherwise be. Indeed, this matter has reached the stage in which articles are being sold as foods which are wholly or completely synthetic, and which have no nutritive value whatever. There was a case reported fairly recently in which the city analyst of Birmingham analysed a meringue powder which was being sold to the public and discovered that it was composed of methyl cellulose, a synthetic chemical which is mainly

947
derived from cotton wool or similar sources of cellulose and which has no nutritive quality whatsoever. A real meringue, which is made out of white of egg and sugar, is a valuable and nutritive article of food. To sell to the public something of the kind I have mentioned (in this particular case, apparently, its composition was approved by the Ministry of Food) seems to me to be a deception which should not be allowed. I do not want to detain the House any longer. There may be an opportunity of discussing a number of these questions on the Committee stage of one or other of the two Bills. I earnestly ask the Minister in charge of this one to consider the points I have raised.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. I am very glad to see the Bill for Scotland coming on in this House so soon after the Bill covering England, which we discussed a week or so ago. This is an extremely valuable Bill bringing in a number of regulations. The Bill brings the matters under consideration up to date. It is very valuable that that should be done, and I am glad of it. I believe that the work which is being done, both in Scotland and in England, should produce a first-class result. I ventured to say in a speech which I made when the matter came up before us previously how excellent I thought the work that was now being done; and I believe that from the enactment of these two Bills we may expect a very considerable improvement in the public health.
4.25 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I join with your Lordships who have already spoken in congratulating the noble Earl the Minister of State for Scotland in his speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I also join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, a fellow Scot, on his promotion. This is a very important measure indeed, as has been stressed by previous speakers, since it opens up great opportunities for improving the standard of our food. I hope that Lord Woolton's suggestion, that the English Bill should be known popularly as "The Clean Food Bill" will be borne in mind, and applied also to this Bill. The suggestions that I submitted to your Lordships when the
948
Second Reading of the English Bill was being debated on November 24 apply, of course, in this case, and I will not take up the time of your Lordships' House by repeating them. I should, however, like to extend some suggestions which I made about jam, since "real jam," the "jam that mother used to make," is an Indispensable part of our tea, a meal for which Scotland is famed throughout the world.
In my view, it was most unfortunate that earlier in this year, if I understand the matter aright, the Minister of Food decided to revoke certain orders which dealt with labels; I feel that this decision will ultimately be shown to be contrary to the interests of the community. This is a matter in which, no doubt, the Minister of Food will be guided by the Minister of Health. It surely cannot be thought that the Minister of Health who, and most rightly, is urging us to take steps to cut down the 5 million tons per annum of sulphur dioxide that fouls the air, can approve of the use of this noxious product in the manufacture of the bulk of the jam made in this country. If the Ministry of Food are to continue their approval—which heaven forbid!—of the manufacture of jam made from pulp, fruit pulp plus sulphur dioxide plus colouring matter, then I suggest that your Lordships should insist that the nature of this "witch's brew" should be described on the label. This, I understand, is not to be the case, and, if I am right, I suggest that that shows a complete disregard of the best interests of the community. I submit that if jam contains any colouring matter or preservative such as sulphur dioxide, the presence of such should be declared, and in legible form, on the label. This, surely, is fair to both consumer and manufacturer.
There are some manufacturers who make the "jam that mother used to make." The general public, who are becoming more and more insistent on getting food free from preservatives and processing, should be told quite frankly what they are buying. I think it is correct to say that some 300,000 tons of jam is made annually in Great Britain; and of this quantity only some 35,000 tons is made from "mother's recipe"—fresh fruit and sugar only. It is only this type of jam that can be imported into the United States. The bulk of the jam we

949
manufacture would be forbidden, since foods containing sulphur dioxide in their make-up are not allowed to be used in, or imported into, the United States.
As your Lordships will know, Scotland produces some of the finest berries for jam-making. Pride of place is taken by the raspberry. Some of this fruit no doubt goes into the bulk of the jam made, to which I have already referred, being eventually mixed with fruit pulp coming from abroad. The fresh fruit is put into barrels containing sulphur dioxide and may be kept there for up to six months. That is the fresh fruit put into the barrels. This process in the "witch's brew" bleaches the fruit white and hardens it. As much of the sulphur dioxide as possible is removed by boiling, and then sugar and colouring are added in an endeavour to imitate the natural colour. If any of your Lordships has been present at this rite, it is a memory that will be with him for all time, since the stench from the barrels containing the fruit-sulphur dioxide mixture prior to boiling will never be forgotten. It quite "out-Herods" the smog. As your Lordships will appreciate, the makers of the 35,000 tons of "mother's jam" preserve their fruit by deep freezing. There is a distinct difference between the two qualities of jam, and I submit with all the force at my command that, without question, the label must accurately describe the product. So successful has been the deep freezing of our Scottish raspberries that the export of this fresh fruit to the United States which last year was some 500 tons, this year has exceeded 2,000 tons, leaving us a total of 10,000 tons for use in this country.
I must apologise to your Lordships for "boxing the compass" gastronomically in asking your Lordships to consider for a moment the kipper and other smoked fish specialities.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): Before the noble Lord goes on to the kipper, is he seriously suggesting that this jam that mother did not make contains sulphur-dioxide in large quantities—sulphur dioxide being, of course, as the noble Lord knows, a gas? Is he suggesting that it exists in jam in any quantity?
LORD SEMPILL: I thank the noble Viscount for his remarks. I suggest that as much as possible of the sulphur dioxide is taken out by boiling, but I submit that that does not take out all the sulphur dioxide from the fruit pulp to which it has been added. I submit that the fact that such jam may not be imported into the United States of America, where they do not allow foods processed by sulphur dioxide, supports my argument on that point.
If I may, I will turn back for a moment to the kipper. Like jam, this once excellent delicacy has suffered from the effects of two wars. As your Lordships are well aware, there is nothing like a really good kipper, properly cooked. It is a dish that can compete in its own right, with success, with all other breakfast dishes. It would appear from the present figure of home consumption that something like 400 million per year are consumed by us—that is about eight per head per year. It is sad to say that the consumption of kippers is decreasing, along with that of other fish products. This, I feel sure, is due to a general decline in the standards of kippering which set in well before the last war with the introduction of the foul practice of dyeing. Most unfortunately, the dyeing before smoking has now become almost universal. By the process of dyeing, it is not necessary to smoke so thoroughly or for so long a time. This, of course, results in a greater yield, as your Lordships will be well aware, since more water is sold with the kipper. The dyed fish does not keep so well as the old-fashioned product; it is nothing like so tasty, and the general result is that a growing number of people have come to regard the so-called kipper with well-justified suspicion. The use of dye permits herrings of poor quality to pass to the market which would not be the case where the old traditional kippering method was used. Herrings suitable for kippering cannot be obtained all the year round, of course, and the kippering of herrings, low in fat content, has been made possible only by the camouflaging effect of dye. Only the large-scale application of deep freeze, afloat and ashore, would enable good-quality kippers, traditional kippers, to be marketed all the year round.
May I, in conclusion, suggest that too much notice can never be given to the

951
work of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. If the general public were conscious of the discoveries made and the work done by that Department, they would insist on those higher standards which the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has emphasised as being so very necessary. The noble Earl, Lord Home, has stressed the same line of thought to-day. The noble Viscount the other day made it clear that all that is desired to be done by this Bill cannot be done by regulation, but will, in the main, be done by awakening the public conscience to demand ever higher standards of food, and cleanliness in its service. I suggest that it would be of incalculable value if the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who has that unique touch in manner and voice that brings him close to the late President Roosevelt, whose "fireside talks" over the radio will never be forgotten, could of an evening talk to us all over the B.B.C., and tell us at frequent intervals about the "jam that mother made," forgetting his famous pie. If he would do that, we should make progress to better food.
In connection with the mass production of kippers by the traditional method of smoking without dyeing, a tribute should be paid to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the work done at their research station at Torry, in Aberdeen. If the Torry line is followed, then the consumption of the real kipper, not the masquerading impostor, will go up and up, and we shall all feel much happier at breakfast time. There is one other research station of the Department to which attention should be drawn, and that is the laboratory at Slough concerned with combating the infestation of produce by insects. This department works closely with the Infestation Control Division of the Ministry of Agriculture. As a result, large quantities of foodstuffs are saved. One remarkable piece of work that has sprung from the Slough laboratory research is the development of a cheap and simple routine for preventing the breeding of blowflies in slaughterhouses, which, in hot weather in particular, present a serious problem. The importance of this work cannot be exaggerated. This development not only significantly improves hygiene in the
952
slaughterhouses themselves but, in particular, in the surrounding areas to which blowflies were found to spread from distances up to three miles.
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, may I, by the courtesy of the noble Earl, the Minister, say just a few words in answer to the question which the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition put directly to me? The question related to the propriety of combining in one Bill amendment and consolidation. Let me say at once that, so far as I am concerned, the noble and learned Earl knocks at an open door. I agree wholly with what he said. Indeed, I should be very sorry not to agree with him upon a subject which he has made particularly his own, and we are all greatly indebted to him for the improvement in the law which has been due to the consolidation in which he has taken so great an interest.
In the case of the English Bill dealing with food and drugs, that is exactly what we did. We had an Amending Bill and it is no secret to the noble and learned Earl—or it would be no secret to him if he read the Memorandum which I recently issued to the Committee of which he is a member—that there is now proceeding the preparation of a Consolidation Bill dealing with food and drugs which will incorporate the amendments in the Amending Bill when that Bill becomes an Act. That is, no doubt, the convenient way of doing it, although it does involve—this may be a little difficult tofollow—putting those who wish to understand it to the trouble of looking at a number of other Acts to which reference is made in the Amending Bill. That course was pursued in the case of the English Bill. It has not been pursued in the case of this Bill and, if I had known that the noble and learned Earl was going to raise the question, I have no doubt that I could have found a satisfactory answer.
I should have given the reason why there is this distinction between the English and the Scottish Bills. I understand that in England there was a Consolidation Bill in 1938, but in Scotland there was no such Bill, and I am told that an Amending Bill would have sinned with so numerous referential provisions that it would have been very difficult to

953
follow. That may be one reason. Another reason—that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch—may be the real reason: that in Scotland they like to do things their own way; and it is obvious that this method met with the approval at any rate of Lord Douglas of Barloch. I think, however, there must be some special reason why this course has been followed in this particular case. Generally, I would agree with the noble and learned Earl that the convenient course is an Amending Bill; then, when it has become an Act and its consolidation is desired, to incorporate it in the body of law dealing with that subject. I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for raising the question, and I can assure him, that so far as I am concerned that is the proper course.
EARL JOWITT: I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said. Before he sits down may I ask him this question? Would he bear in mind wren this is done (I think it would be an innovation but there is no reason why we should not have innovations) the possibility of indicating by some kind of special print or italics, or something of that sort, what is new and what is old? Then we in this House shall be able to concentrate upon looking at the new rather than at the old.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly bear in mind what has been said by the noble and learned Earl. I do not know that it would be very easy, because with a consolidating Bill there are small variations at almost every point, and then it is difficult to say what is old and what is new. There is no clear distinction such as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, was thinking of. But, certainly, if it becomes necessary again to introduce a Bill in this way, the noble and learned Earl's suggestion will be borne in mind.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and leaned Earl and to the Lord Chancellor for raising this question. When the noble and learned Earl says that this form of Dill makes it difficult for the Opposition to criticise, I hope he will not exempt the Minister in charge of the Bill from bewilderment also. I have every sympathy with what he has said and I hope
954
that some effective way will be found of getting over the difficulty. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has said that we have been able to do a good job in putting together different provisions from different Acts and making a fairly coherent measure.
Lord Greenhill asked me two questions. If he will look at Clause 2 (1) I think he will find that drugs are not exempted from this provision. This is a matter of drafting and I will look at it again, but what that subsection says is that "food" means food for human consumption. It is necessary to put that in partly because (I hope I am not reminding the noble Lord of something that he has probably forgotten) there is castor oil for human beings and castor oil for animals, and it is necessary to make clear from time to time that we are talking about food for human consumption, and partly because drugs are not always for human consumption—they may be for human application. This is really a difficulty in drafting; the draftsmen tell us that this is in the best form. However, I will have another look at it, with that observation in mind. May I now turn to the noble Lord's point about expenses and how they will be dealt with. The answer is that we do not anticipate that there will be much extra spent on these services. There is no provision for some new ad hoc grant in this Bill. The expenditure will fall on the rates, or on the equalisation grant where that is payable—I am afraid it is not in Glasgow.
The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and others, have all given a general welcome to this Bill, with some qualifications. I hope that when we come to another stage of the Bill Lord Douglas of Barloch will find that the diminution of the value of food by abstraction is covered in Clause 2; that honest labelling, in which both he and Lord Sempill were interested, is covered by Clauses 6 and 7, and that under Clause 4 the Ministers can, where necessary, prescribe the composition of food. This Bill is an honest attempt to do what we can to make food pure and clean, and I thank your Lordships for accepting it as such.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES OF SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that the story behind this Bill will be of interest to your Lordships as, indeed, I am sure that its provisions are welcome to the people of Scotland, who hope that it will readily be given a Second Reading. It was in 1780 that the Earl of Buchan first proposed that there should be a Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. In 1781 the Society were given their first gift of Arms which were dredged from Duddingston Loch, and for seventy years the Fellows of the Society built up a most valuable collection, of which it is interesting to note that they themselves discovered some of the most significant objects.
In 1851, the Society handed over the whole as a gift to the nation. That being so, a different organisation was necessary to run the Museum. Until 1906, this important collection was owned and controlled by the Board of Trustees for Manufactures, with the Society left in general supervision. In 1906, the functions of the Board were transferred to the Trustees of the National Galleries, while the supervision and control were left with the Society. That established a system of dual control which has never worked well. In 1930 a Royal Commission, in 1949 a Standing Commission, and in 1951 a Departmental Committee under Sir Randal Philip, all pronounced in favour of abolishing this system of dual control, and it is thanks to the Philip Committee (and here I should like to record the Government's thanks to the Committee) that we are given positive recommendations which we have been able to make the basis of this Bill. The Committee recorded that the Museum now contains one of the foremost collections of antiquities in Europe, but that the system of management and control was anomalous. The Trustees of the National Galleries and the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries agree that this is so, and they welcome the main proposal of this Bill, which is to set up a new and separate governing body for the Museum.
Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the constitution and proceedings of the proposed Board. It will include the President and
956
four Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries; five representatives from the universities, and eleven persons appropriately qualified, who will be appointed by the Secretary of State, with a Chairman who may be either a member or somebody from outside—also the appointment of the Secretary of State. Clause 2 provides the power under which the Board will operate. First of all, it can dispose of any redundant material—I suppose old skulls or anything of that kind may go. With the approval of the Secretary of State, it can also sell any material which is thought to be superfluous to the Museum; and if the Board wants to buy something else it also requires that approval. Secondly, it is given power to lend to other museums and to exhibitions. Clause 3 vests the ownership of all the objects in the Museum. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with finance. Clause 6 has nothing to do with the Museum, but we have taken advantage of this Bill to remove restrictions which have proved irksome to the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery and to the Secretary of State in the election of members.
My Lords, this is a memorable year for the National Museum of Antiquities. By good fortune, a building ideally situated to their purpose, which will enable them to display their treasures to much greater advantage, has fallen into their possession in Shandwick Place in Edinburgh. This Bill gives to them a governing body with the single-minded purpose of developing the Museum for the benefit of the people, for the educational advantage of the people and further research. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree, by approving the Second Reading of this Bill, to make it possible for the National Museum, which is already of high standing, to have a still brighter future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I want to say a word of grateful thanks to the noble Earl for the exceedingly clear way in which he has introduced this Bill and for the historical review which he has given us. In this matter we owe a debt of gratitude to a number of people, and we have to go back very far in order to realise fully our indebtedness. First, there is the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,

957
who have given us, as the noble Earl has indicated, one of Europe's foremost collections of antiquities. That statement is made quite definitely in the report of the Philip Committee. Then we are indebted to Sir John Findlay, proprietor of The Scotsman newspaper, for his gift of £60,000, which enabled the building in Queen Street to be erected. Here, in one of the most ornate of Edinburgh's public buildings, have been housed since 1891 both the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of Antiquities. It is on a fairly central site but not one of the most favourable sites in Edinburgh. While I was thinking of the munificent gift which enabled the building to be erected, it occurred to me to speculate as to how much it would cost to put it there to-day. Probably we could not have a building of that kind, decorated as it is, for less than£250,000. Since that time—that is, since 1891—there have been several Reports on the need for more and separate accommodation. But, through all that time when those Reports were being made, the joint Board administering the affairs of both bodies has worked with remarkable harmony, notwithstanding the difficulties with which they were faced.
That brings me to Command Paper 8604, upon which the present Bill is based. This clear and comprehensive though not too lengthy document is a credit to those responsible for it. The Secretary of State for Scotland was wise in his day and generation when he chose as Chairman of this inquiry the Sheriff of Renfrew and Argyll, Sir Randal Philip, as he is now known since he received the honour of knighthood from our gracious Sovereign Lady. He has undertaken many duties of this kind, always with satisfactory results. I have had opportunities of observing his work at close quarters, and I know how capable he is. For example, he is Procurator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and he sits in that Assembly as legal guide in its deliberations. He had the collaboration of two very distinguished public servants. One was Mr. P. J. Rose, whom we have seen for many years in the Scottish Office as he has progressed from one responsible position to another, always with much acceptance. The other member of the Committee, Sir Thomas Kendrick, was formerly Keeper of British Antiquities in the British
958
Museum and latterly Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum itself. These appointments speak to his high qualities and qualifications. Is it any wonder then that the Report is so sound that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government as a whole adopt it and frame the present Bill exactly on the lines proposed, including the recommendations regarding future administration?
It is a simple issue that is before us in this. Bill. The Command Paper and the Bill before us seek to deal with nothing more nor less than a housing problem. The Report uses the word "congestion" several times in describing the conditions under which activity is now being carried on. Paragraph 33 of the Report is at once a call to action and a clear indication of how circumstances, of which we all know the cause, have frustrated any possibility of progress. I should like to put on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT Paragraph 33 of the Command Paper. It reads:
"In describing the Museum's present accommodation, we have drawn attention to the grave congestion which is at present crippling its work. That congestion exists in all departments, but especially in storage accommodation, in exhibition space for display to the general public, and in workrooms and offices. This state of acute congestion has been repeatedly stressed in the Reports of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. In its first Report, in 1933, the Standing Commission referred to the suggestion of the Royal Commission that a new building should be provided for the Museum. In its second Report, in 1938, it stated: 'Undoubtedly the need of a new building for the existing Museum of Antiquities is very great.' In its third Report, in 1948, it again called attention to: 'the Museum's great need for new and more adequate accommodation.' And, in 1949, as already indicated, it is estimated that a new building would require about four times the existing floor space of a site from 25,000 to 30,000 square feet. The witnesses whom we heard likewise stressed the grave lack of accommodation, and the urgent need of a drastic, almost surgical remedy."
In the light of that evidence, I am sure your Lordships need no urging to give the Government the "all clear" to proceed with the provision of a new home for the National Museum of Antiquities, in order that the present overcrowding may cease as quickly as possible. Twenty years is the time suggested for the carrying into effect of the proposals made by the Committee. We shall look forward with keen anticipation to the completion of the project. My Lords, I hope the looks which I am getting are not looks of

959
incredulity. We have been dealing with methods for improving the health of the people. Surely we must have faith in the future to talk—and this is especially so in the case of a person of my age—of twenty years hence. As I have said, we shall look forward with keen anticipation to the completion of the project. Meantime, suggestions are made for early action to ease the position, which urgently requires to be dealt with.
I shall not waste time with further comment on the provisions in the Bill, except to say that I am very glad to note the proposed constitution of the new Board. Of the eleven persons appointed by the Secretary of State, as shown in Section 1 (E) of the Schedule, eight are to represent unspecified interests. In my opinion, that is a wise suggestion. I see in this proposal a possibility of persons with varied cultural interests being included, to the benefit of the new Board and its work—for example, authorities on such subjects as ancient pottery, historians and pre-historians and others whose knowledge would be helpful. Included in this list also might be persons interested in the establishment of folk museums, which receive considerable notice from the Committee. Scotland, unlike the Scandinavian countries, with which she has much affinity, is laggard in this regard, but I predict that before the work we authorise in this Bill is completed, the need for such development will be apparent. I ask the Minister of State to urge upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the desirability of seeing that the forward-looking views of the Committee are given attention and support in this regard. I am sure I can promise the cordial support of noble Lords on these Benches for the early passage of the Bill, which I have great pleasure in commending to the best attention of this House.
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, as all Scotsmen do, as a supremely important measure, enabling us to maintain all our historic associations with Scotland. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl on the extremely interesting manner in which he has expounded the Bill to the House. He said that, with the consent of the Secretary of State, an object
960
belonging to the Museum could be exchanged, sold or otherwise disposed of. Of course, there is a qualification to that, which the noble Earl knows. Without this qualification, some of us would have been somewhat alarmed. The qualification is contained in the proviso to Clause 2 (1), on page 2, which reads:
"Provided that the powers conferred by this section of exchanging, selling or otherwise disposing of or lending any object shall not be exercised in any manner inconsistent with any condition known to have been attached to any gift or bequest by virtue or in consequence of which that object was vested in the Board for the purposes of the Museum."
I have had the privilege of gifting to the Museum some famous Border relics, the Harden Horn and Spurs, which no doubt the Minister of State has seen in the Museum. Without that proviso, I should have been somewhat alarmed lest, at some future date, with the consent of the Secretary of State, these relics might have been disposed of by the Board of Management of the Museum. However, I think all who have given gifts to the Museum will be perfectly content with this proviso. I draw attention to it in case the Minister's speech should be reported at length, and it was thought that with the consent of the Secretary of State these objects could be disposed of without any further consideration.
This is a turning point in the history of our National Museum of Antiquities. I have had a very long contact with the Museum. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, in his expression of thanks to all who have in the past either contributed to the creation of the Museum or administered it in the capable manner in which this has always been done. In welcoming the Bill, I would express my own great appreciation of the courtesy which I have always received from the authorities connected with the Museum, and I wish them the greatest success in all time coming.
5.5 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if a Welshman may intervene in a Scottish debate, I should like to refer to something that has been said by my noble friend Lord Mathers. In Wales at this moment we are looking with keen interest on Scottish administration, and we envy Scotland many things that they have and we do not have. For example, we envy

961
them the Minister of State and his Scottish Ministerial colleagues. But apparently there is one thing which we have and Scotland does not have: that is, an excellent folk museum—I refer to the museum at St. Pagans, near Cardiff, given to the Welsh nation by the generosity of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. This has aroused a great deal of interest in Wales in many parts of the world, and I suggest to the noble Earl that he should pay a visit to St. Pagans, where I am sure he will be able to learn many lessons which he can bring to the service of his native land.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am grateful for the invitation of the noble Lord, and I should certainly like to accept it. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord that most people think that Ministers of State and museum pieces are much the same thing. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Mathers and Lord Elibank, for what they have said. I realise that if a donor attaches a condition of this sort to his gift to 'the Museum and the Museum accepts the condition, then the Secretary of State cannot be asked to sanction the disposal of the object.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
5.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this is a short Bill, which is intended to do three things. The first is to increase the borrowing powers of the two Airways Corporations, and the other two are to bring these two Corporations into line with the other nationalised industries in that they are given powers to make a pension scheme for members of the boards, and to extend the period during which the Corporations are liable in an action at law from one to three years. I will examine each of these points a little further in detail. Under the Bill, British Overseas Airways Corporation will have their borrowing powers extended from £60 million to £80 million. At March 31 last, they had drawn only to the extent
962
of £36 million. Their programme up to 1960 envisages expenditure, which is very tentative, of something in the order of £63 million. This figure, of course, is offset by depreciation of about £20 million. British European Airways have their borrowing powers extended from £20 million to £35 million. On March 31 last, they had drawn only £16 million, but their programme up to 1960 involves a net expediture of another £16 million. Again, this is tentative.
It is clear, therefore, that both Corporations will exceed their present borrowing powers in the near future and that for their programmes up to 1960 they will need the maxima increased by the amounts which I have mentioned. The main object of this additional expenditure is the purchase of aircraft. B.O.A.C. are now ordering, or considering ordering, Comets II and III and two versions of the Britannia. B.E.A. are ordering two versions of the Viscount and, eventually, a Viscount replacement and an advanced helicopter. These estimates are intended to carry the Corporations to about the year 1960. I must again emphasise that the amounts are necessarily tentative, but it is necessary to remember that aircraft take a long time to build. Orders must be placed well in advance and accompanied first by a deposit and subsequently by progress payments. Moreover, the cost of these aircraft to-day is very high. We believe, however, that they will show themselves to be, and indeed to a considerable extent have already done so, more efficient than the existing equipment. The fact that they are all British aircraft will undoubtedly serve to give a considerable stimulus to the export trade of the aircraft which they are using. This clause gives the Corporations statutory power to borrow within the maxima laid down. They cannot, however, proceed to issue stock without Treasury approval.
It is, I think, apparent to everybody that the last seven years have seen an enormous development of world air traffic. Between 1947 and 1952 the world traffic doubled. Between the financial year 1947–48 and the financial year 1952–53, the two Corporations trebled their traffic. Whilst the two periods I have taken do not absolutely correspond, they do show beyond a peradventure that the Corporations are more than keeping pace with other air-

963
lines in the world. B.O.A.C. have increased their percentage of traffic between this country and North America from 18 per cent. in 1947 to 42 per cent. in the present year, in the sphere where, I suppose it is fair to say, the most keen international competition in the world takes place. I do not think anyone seriously questions that we wish to hold our position in the field of commercial aviation, and the only way in which we can do it is by enabling the two Corporations to purchase the best equipment which is available. We are glad to recognise this means British equipment.
Clause 2 takes powers to frame a pension scheme for the members of the boards of the two Corporations. The first subsection deals with the case of an employee of the Corporation who is already included in a staff pension scheme of one of the Corporations. This can now be extended to cover him whilst serving on the board. Subsection (2) deals with the case of members appointed to the board from outside. The emphasis I should like to make there is that it is essential for the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to have powers to enable him to place such members in broadly the same position as those entitled to continue their membership of the staff scheme under the preceding paragraph. Indeed, I think your Lordships will agree that it is right to have the power to give a member of a board a pension after, perhaps, many years of faithful and full-time service. In any case the powers for which we ask here are identical with those which exist in the other nationalised industries.
Clause 3 takes from the Air Corporations a special protection in connection with the limitation of action which is not enjoyed by other nationalised industries, and will place the Air Corporations in exactly the same position as those other industries are in at the present time, with, however, the proviso that it will apply only in the case of actions arising after the passing of this Bill. The effect of the clause is to remove the Air Corporations from the general class of public authorities who can rely on the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and on Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1939, which limit to one year the period during which proceedings may be brought against such bodies. Your Lordships will
964
no doubt be aware that one of the recommendations of the Tucker Committee was that the distinction between public authority and private persons in regard to the limitation of action should be abolished. Your Lordships may also be aware that a Bill with this object in view is under consideration in another place. I am able to say that the Government will give every support to this general and comprehensive Bill, which would have an overriding effect on the legislation that we are now considering and on other nationalised industries. In the meantime, I urge the House to agree to the present proposals, which are a step in the right direction, and can be regarded as a stopgap measure to remove the anomaly of the position of the Air Corporations being different from that of the other nationalised industries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, this Bill has three purposes. The first is to increase the limit of borrowing powers of the Corporations, the second to make certain provisions as to pensions for directors, and the third refers to an amendment of the law relating to the limitation of actions. May I deal with directors' pensions first? As I understand it, there are two types of director who will be affected by this measure. The first is the director who has served for many years as a member of the Corporation, who has possibly worked his way up from lower down the ladder and in the course of time has been found fitted to become a director. Under Clause 2 (1) of this Bill that person can now receive a pension, and his previous service will be taken into account. I have no objection whatever to that proposal; in fact, I think it is a thoroughly sound one which is in full accord with the development of the Corporations, and I support the Government in it.
Obviously we do not want the Corporations to have on the board merely people who have served in the Corporations as employees; it is equally desirable that we should have people from outside who can bring to the board the experience they have gained in other fields. That brings me to the second

965
type of director who will be affected; that is to say, the director who has served many years, and possibly most of his life, in undertakings outside the Corporation: he may be a banker or anything else, but he has not served as an employee of the Corporation. This clause, as I understand it, enables such a person to be pensioned in certain circumstances, That I believe to be right in principle. In these days of high taxation it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to save towards their old age. It may be found—I certainly found it when I was Minister in charge of these Corporations, and I think it has been found by others—difficult to persuade the type of man you want from outside to become a member of the board if you are unable to make some arrangements about a pension. Therefore, in principle this is right, and I support the Government in their proposals in relation to the type of director to whom I have just referred.
There are, however, one or two observations that I should like to make. First of all, the salaries of directors, and particularly the salaries of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, were fixed originally on the basis that there would be no pension. They were fixed at a much higher rate than the salary of the Minister and the salary of the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry under whom, to some ex t, they come. They were fixed at that rate because there was no pension—at least, that was one of the reasons. It may be that if the Government are now proposing—and I am fully in sympathy with their proposal—to make an alteration in the terms under which the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and other directors will serve, that point will heave to be taken into consideration, and in future appointments an adjustment of the salaries made.
As I have already mentioned, the salaries of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman are in most cases considerably higher, not only than those of the Permanent Under-Secretary, but of the Minister; and we have now got into the extraordinary position, which I think has never happened before, of Ministers in charge of Departments receiving less than the Permanent Under-Secretary, who gets a pension on top of his salary, and also less than the Chairman of the Board, who may under the Bill get a pension
966
on top of his salary, too. Although I am not in favour of too large salaries, I should feel inclined to support any suggestion that Ministers should be put back to where they were before. They are the only people who have had a cut and, on constitutional grounds, I think it is extraordinary that Ministers should now be getting considerably less than their own Permanent Under-Secretaries. I fancy I see a welcoming look on the faces of Ministers on the Front Bench opposite.
This is a Bill which creates a completely new class of pensioners. It creates a class of pensioners who are getting substantial salaries. Some of the people affected—not many, of course—will be getting £6,000, £7,000 and £8,000 a year, and expenses. To some extent that is the type of man for whom you are catering, or he is included among those for whom you are catering. It is rather odd that this Bill should come up within a week of the turning down by the Government of the suggestion that the old Regular officers, who have served us so faithfully in previous wars, should not have their pensions made up to the level they were at before the cut in the 'thirties. As we know, those officers receive a pension 9½ per cent. less than they received in 1919, and the Government have stated that the reason why they are not restoring that cut is because its restoration might open the flood-gates to other claims. It was not because there was no injustice: the Government admit the injustice; they admit the fact that these unfortunate people are the only members of the whole community who are getting less than they were in 1919. Yet they say, "We cannot do anything for these people, unjust though it may be, because it would open the flood-gates to other claims." Well, here is a case where the Government are not putting right an injustice; they are creating a whole class of new pensioners and pensioners who, in some cases, are receiving many thousands of pounds a year. I will not hold up the Bill on that account, but I would just point out to the House how completely anomalous it is for the Government to bring in this particular Bill this week, when they turned down the case of the pensioners.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord must not say that we are creating a new class of pensioners. The word is

967
outrageously out of line with what the Bill is doing. We are doing no more than taking enabling powers which have been taken in the case of all the other nationalised industries, because at some time it may be necessary to create a contributory pension system. We are not creating pensions at all.
LORD OGMORE: I presume the noble Earl is not suggesting to the House that he is asking the House for powers he will not use. I agree with him that he should have the powers. All I am saying is that, having done this, which he is right in doing, he might also remedy an injustice and put the Regular soldiers into the position in which they ought to be. Having done this, he has swept away, as it were, his one reason for not doing it in the case of the old soldiers. I should have thought that that was quite a legitimate Parliamentary comment to make on a subject of public interest, and a matter which has often been before your Lordships. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, is not here—he was here earlier—and that the Minister of Defence is not here. Noble Lords have often referred in this House to the point I have mentioned, and feel very strongly on it. I mention it because I think it is deserving of mention.
Turning to the second object of the Bill, that is, the increase of borrowing powers, I agree entirely with the Government's suggestion. It is obviously right that the Corporations should have borrowing powers. They are re-equipping themselves with all these splendid new aircraft, the Comets, the Britannias and the Viscounts, and soon the Corporations will have the best machines in their class in the world and will be in a position to obtain the cream of the international traffic in the areas in which they operate. I can give your Lordships an example of what this means. Only last week I came back from Switzerland in a Viscount. We strolled out on to the tarmac and saw a rival company's machine—a pistonengined type—take off. We made our leisurely adieux and proceeded to our aircraft. We sat in the aircraft for some time, waiting for permission to take off. We took off, and at the other end we landed at London Airport. We disembarked, and we were walking towards the airport buildings when the other
968
machine which had left before us came into sight. That is what it means. In other words, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have machines in the air which can at the moment completely outdistance their competitors.
But they will need more money, and the recent Report of the B.E.A. states:
"A close analysis of the cost of working out initial requirements, of collaborating with the manufacturers in their development, of introducing a new type of which no experience exists, of working up a brand-new type of power plant and of pioneering the increase of overhaul hours from uneconomic short periods to economic, extended figures shows that the airline expenditure on Viscount development is not less £1 million spread over about four years."
So it is a factor, which I think is not often realised, that the airline operators—especially those like B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., who are experimenting with new types—often have an expensive period to go through from the time when the machine leaves the aircraft manufacturer until the time that it is actually in service. That is a point which is not always realised by the public.
Also in the Report which has just come out from B.O.A.C. there is a complaint about delays, and they say that they had delays in getting certain permissions from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I hope that this is not one of the first fruits of the merger. We warned the Government that there might be delays if a more cumbersome system was set up when the two Ministries were merged. The Report of B.O.A.C. says that in September, 1952, they intended to start tourist services between London and Lusaka. They did not receive the necessary authority for some time. Indeed, it was March, 1953, before permission, and then only temporary, was obtained from the Ministry. The Report goes on to say:
"Such delays must necessarily adversely affect the flexibility of the Corporation and its ability to match its services to public demand."
These delays, of course, will affect the ability of the Corporation to earn a substantial income upon their capital, and will mean that the Corporation will have to obtain more capital than they would have to obtain if their affairs were dealt with without delay in the Ministry.
I should like to say a word about troop-carrying. The Labour Government

969
started it—certainly we gave several contracts to charterers—but I think this Government has extended or at least carried out our policy in that respect without any diminution whatever. It means, of course, that B.O.A.C. may have a number of aircraft—at the moment they have at least five or six Hermes—standing idle while the charterers are doing the charter work. That, again, affects their financial position. It is not only on that score that I should like to direct the Minister's attention to this charter work. I have been rather concerned in the last two years as to whether the charter companies have not contracted at a far lower rate than they should have done for the handling of troops and Government passengers. In other words, I hope that there has not been a diminution in the safety precautions. We remember the York aircraft which went down in the Atlantic, and there was recently a Hermes that went down in the Mediterranean. I hope that the Minister and those responsible are looking very carefully into this question to ensure that, because of the rates at which the charter firms have competed for business, they have not been tempted to cut down in the direction of safety.
I had intended to say this anyhow, but—and this is rather surprising—a few minutes ago, when I went into the Prince's Chamber, I saw on the tape a report on the disaster to the York. The report has not yet appeared in the Printed Paper Office, but it makes rather alarming reading. It may not be so alarming, of course, when we see the full report, so I will not say any more about that. But I noted that the suggestions made contain these elements. It is suggested that there should be a tightening of the discipline of the ground staff. Secondly, it is suggested that the question of crew fatigue should be looked into; thirdly that there should be a limitation of permitted operations—I presume that that affects fatigue of aircraft, rather than of crew—and fourthly, that questions of external stowage should be considered. I hope that I am wrong and that these various factors did not, in fact, contribute to the loss of that aircraft with considerable loss of life among the people aboard. The same thing happened with regard to the Hermes in the Mediterranean. When she went down, there was considerable loss of life. I hope that it is not so, as
970
I say, but I have a suspicion that perhaps we are not paying enough for these services, and that consequently it may be that the safety factor is overlooked.
There is another point I would mention. Quite recently a former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation has become a member of one of these boards. I have nothing but praise for this particular Permanent Secretary: he is a man of the greatest probity, who has done everything with the utmost propriety. But I ask the Government whether, in fact, it is right, when he retires, to appoint a Permanent Secretary of the Ministry—who, to a great extent, particularly now that the Minister has so much to look after, is a link between Minister and Corporation, a watchdog—as a director on the board. It used to be said, many years ago, when rearmament seemed to be much more a topic of dispute than it is to-day, that there were far too many admirals getting jobs in armament firms at the end of their service. I am sure that that was not a just criticism, and that the admirals behaved perfectly properly; but it did not look right to the public. Those were private firms in which those officers were used, but in this case employment was in one of these Government Corporations under the control of the Minister. I suggest that this is the sort of tendency that we do not want to encourage in any way. They could be employed in otherspheres—for instance, the Meat Marketing Board, if there is such a thing; or the Gas Council, the Electricity Authority or the National Coal Board; but not a board which to a large extent the man has been supervising during his Civil Service life. I put that forward merely as a suggestion. The idea just strikes me, and it might strike other people, too.
The third section of the Bill deals with limitation of actions. There again, I support the Government's proposals; I think they are right. When I was Minister we had some difficulty with this matter. I wonder, therefore, why the Government have put the matter into this Bill, particularly as, from what the noble Earl has said, they are soon to introduce, or to support, a Bill in another place which deals with limitations of actions generally and affects other bodies of a statutory kind, and not only with these Corpora-

971
tions. That is possibly a small point, but I think most practitioners would say that it gets more and more difficult to know what the law is. One would not normally expect to find proposals dealing with limitations in a Bill which deals primarily with the increase in the borrowing powers of the statutory Corporations. However, I do not press that point; I merely bring it forward for consideration by the Government. I should have thought that it would be better if they were embodied in a general Bill.
Finally, I hope that under the new dispensation not only the Corporations but the whole of the charter companies will be encouraged. I hope the Corporations and the charter companies are getting a fair deal from the new Ministry. They are the young children of transport, the new and growing element in transport. I hope that the very powerful interests, like the railways, shipping, and road transport, are not completely overshadowing them outside the Minister's door and inside his room. I have no reason to suppose that they are, but I hope they are not. It would be a tragedy, now that British civil aviation is right at the top, if we did not give them in every possible way the support they deserve.
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the warm welcome which he has given to this Bill and for his remarks. In so far as they were relevant to it, I thought they were very satisfactory indeed; I have no complaint. But it is to the remarks which were relevant that perhaps I may reply. It is true that there is a Bill in another place, but that may or may not be brought, in time, to this House. We do not know. All we are doing here to limit actions is to put the Air Corporations in line with the other Corporations. The wider question is far too big a matter to deal with here. The noble Lord has spoken of certain journeys to Lusaka. It is not only this Government that has taken the action he mentioned, but other Governments also. But this is an isolated case and has nothing to do with the present Bill.
The noble Lord mentioned Sir Arnold Overton. I recognise that if such appointments became a common practice it would
972
be open to objection. This appointment was looked at carefully at the time and was scrutinised with these particular points in view. It was, however, felt that there were special reasons why it was desirable that Sir Arnold Overton's experience in the field of civil aviation should be made available to the Corporation, and in particular his experience on the financial side. Therefore, without differing from the principle raised by the noble Lord, I recognise that this is a special case and that it is the particular qualifications of Sir Arnold Overton which are the justification of this action and which make it right and proper. The noble Lord treated rather lightly, I thought, the question of the aircraft accident——
LORD OGMORE: I object to that word. I asked the noble Earl to look into it because I am very much concerned with this very problem. I am not dealing with it lightly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, quoting from the ticker tape on these matters seems to me to be going rather far. When the noble Lord has had as much experience of these matters as I have he will take more care, instead of quoting from ticker tapes as they come out. They are likely to be misleading in some respects. The particular accident referred to is one of which we know nothing of what has happened. We are told that "the possibility of fire cannot be disregarded." That means that nothing is known of what has happened. I can tell the noble Lord that the safety precautions are in no way reduced. The licensing system stands as it did. The certificates of air-worthiness are just as severe as they ever were, and I have no reason to suppose that the essential standards of safety are not being maintained. It would be a great pity if it should go out from this House that there has been the slightest slackness as far as that is concerned. We do examine and shall examine most carefully all the evidence on these accidents. If the noble Lord would like a full discussion on this point we can have it later. I hope I may leave it with those words.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CAR PARKING IN INNER LONDON
5.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they intended to implement the recommendations contained in the Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London, 1953; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure most of your Lordships will agree that, since the end of the war, there has been a growing concern, year by year, at the increasing traffic congestion in the streets of London, especially within the inner area. I suggest that the rate of increase is likely to be much faster in the next few months, with the advent of cheaper new cars and the fall in values in the second-hand market in ears. We may well find that traffic in London will be completely paralysed in the not very distant future unless drastic action is taken by Her Majesty's Government. All the information, data and costs are available and, as your Lordships know, provided by successive Committees. Yet no active measures are being taken to stem the appalling congestion which is creeping relentlessly on us in the streets of London.
Your Lordships may recall that in March, 1950, a special sub-committee of the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee was set up to investigate this very pressing matter, and with special reference to car parking. This Committee made some fifty-six recommendations, of which nineteen referred to the improvement of parking conditions. In view of the great importance of the car parking recommendations, yet another committee was set up under that new-fangled name of "Working Party," a name which I have never been quite able to understand but which I am sure is very useful. It is the report of this Working Party, published earlier this year, to which my
974
Motion refers to-day. I think its outstanding feature is that it shows that some 16,000 vehicles are parked for long periods on the streets, and the owners have been forced to do this as accommodation off the highway, in garages and bombed-site parks, is insufficient by approximately 12,000 vehicle spaces; and, of course, as the buildings start to go up the bombed-site parks are becoming fewer and fewer. It is no use saying that the car owner ought not to park on the highway. We must accept the fact that the motor vehicle is part of our twentieth century existence and civilisation, and provide for it accordingly. Otherwise, parking on the highway will continue, and not only continue but grow.
Now, how did the Working Party propose to alleviate the situation? They clearly stated that their proposed parking plan consisted of three interdependent elements. I propose to read them to your Lordships:

"(a) construction of garages below and above ground;

(b) introduction of parking meters; and

(c) a new balanced system of waiting regulations";

and I would particularly stress the words "balanced system." It was emphasised by this committee that the plan was essentially a comprehensive one, and that it would be fundamentally unsound to attempt to adopt any one of these recommendations on its own. Notwithstanding this very clear recommendation, the Metropolitan Police have recently introduced further parking restrictions in a large number of streets in inner London, and in some cases this is causing complete chaos. I think it is because the restrictions do not appear to be applied in accordance with any well-conceived plan. The inescapable fact remains that parking accommodation off the highway is hopelessly inadequate. These new restrictions do not solve the, problem of finding additional parking accommodation, but merely add to the number of vehicles which have nowhere to park.
These additional parking restrictions are also having a serious effect in another direction, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Annual Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic

975
Advisory Committee of this year. Paragraph 17, page 5, reads:
"We have now virtually come to an end of these restrictions which can be introduced with advantage. We would indeed go farther and say that a number of restrictions which we have in the past advised and which have in effect been put into force are so irritating and onerous that the police find difficulty in enforcing them without diverting an undue amount of available manpower and the efforts they make to do so tend to undermine that sensible and proper relation which has grown up between the police and road users generally. We deplore this."
I suggest that those are very strong words. This warning was issued prior to the recent additional parking restrictions instituted by the Metropolitan Police, and I suggest that in many cases they are harassing the motorist unduly and should not have been imposed until the car parking plan had been dealt with as a whole, as recommended by the report of the Working Party. The Metropolitan Police have recently taken action to eliminate central parking in a number of streets, such as the Haymarket and Lower Regent Street, but, on the other hand, no action has yet been taken to relieve the situation by permitting unilateral waiting in some streets which are at present totally restricted, such as Albemarle Street and Dover Street.
As your Lordships may know, I am closely connected with one of the motoring organisations, and we have considerable experience of the difficulties of parking and so on. We understand the difficulties of the police. I suggest that the real fault lies in having no unifying car parking authority; that is where the trouble is. The Working Party report suggests the setting up of a parking advisory panel to assist the Minister of Transport. I think this would be a step in the right direction, but I doubt whether it goes far enough. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government whether such a parking advisory panel has yet been set up. At the present time, there seems to be no co-ordination, and some half-a-dozen or more authorities have all a finger in the pie. The Metropolitan Police do their best to try to please them all, sometimes with disastrous results. Many instances can be given to show that no properly thought out plan prevails. In Savile
976
Row, for instance, parking is being allowed on both sides of the street—a street where there is no room for two-way traffic—while in other streets in the same locality, which are one-way routes, parking is either prohibited altogether or unilateral parking is allowed.
I do not want to embark on a debate on the police force, but in passing I should like to point out that the prevention and detection of crime undoubtedly suffers owing to far too many police being engaged on traffic duties. I should like to see set up a special traffic corps whose sole duties would be the control of traffic. It would not operate separately from the police force of the country but each force should have a subsidiary traffic corps, in the same way that each force has a C.I.D. I suggest it would not be difficult to get recruits for the traffic corps, as it is at the present time for the police, because the standard of physique, health, and so on, would not need to be so stringent, and training would relate only to traffic duties. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give their serious attention to this suggestion.
I should like now to deal for a few minutes with the construction of garages below and above ground which has been proposed in the Working Party's report. A good deal of nonsense has been talked about the fabulous cost of building these underground garages and car parks, and also about the destruction of amenities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will develop the point about amenities a little later on. Those of your Lordships who have studied the report will have found that it suggests that in the first place four underground garages should be built. These four garages, at 1951 prices, would cost approximately £1½ million; but undoubtedly the cost to the Ministry of Transport could be reduced by a contribution from Civil Defence funds, because, of course, these underground garages would be extremely useful in war time. The report goes on to say, that against the cost of providing these garages could be set the rental to be obtained from letting them to operators and the revenue from the proposed parking meters, which together would provide for only a very slight annual loss—in fact, the annual estimate in the report is something in the nature of about £15,000. I suggest that mechanical car parking has not received the atten-

977
tion it deserves in the report. With the newer methods now available I would ask Her Majesty's Government to look into this question of mechanical car-parking again, and perhaps a little more closely, because with these methods far more cars can be parked in a particular space, and that is going to reduce overhead charges.
My Lords, what are we really waiting for? Surely it cannot be finance, when the figure is only something like £15,000, or perhaps a little more than that at to-day's prices. Cannot the Minister of Transport press forward discussions with the local authorities concerned, on the basis that the small deficit I have mentioned should be divided equally between the Minister of Transport and the local authority in whose area the garage is placed? We must get something done to relieve the appalling and growing congestion in the streets, by applying the three main elements recommended in the report, which I hope are accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
"Time waits for no man,"
and it certainly will not wait for some miracle to turn up to relieve the parking difficulties in the inner area of London, which may well get completely out of hand unless something is commenced fairly quickly.
Underground garages cannot, of course, be built in a short time. But the plans are now in existence, and a start could be made very quickly. I do not know, but it may be that one of the obstacles in the way of providing off-street car parks is an administrative one, because I believe that Government grants made to local authorities for highway maintenance and development cannot be used for the provision of car parks. Surely this is a point that can be easily overcome. I suggest that the Government's contribution for underground and above-ground car parks might well come from the proposed Road Loan which I ventured to suggest to your Lordships some time ago, because with the small finance involved it would make little difference to the funds provided for the Road Loan. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are giving serious consideration to a long-term loan for roads which can well be tied up with the provision of underground car parks. A really effective combination
978
of road improvements and parking in the London area would go a long way to smooth out the difficulties. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the House is under a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for having once more introduced this subject to the House, and for the admirable way in which he has covered the ground in so short a speech. He has left me little to say, and I do not propose to take up too long in saying it. But first of all I should like to draw the attention of the House to the terms of the Motion itself. I wonder whether the noble Lord is speaking prophetically when he asks Her Majesty's Government "when they intend to implement the recommendations." I hope it really is as simple as that, that Her Majesty's Government have decided to implement them, and that it is only a question of time. Even if it were, much will have to be done before it begins to be possible to implement these recommendations. For instance, the report of the Working Party to which the noble Lord referred, which I may say, incidentally, is an excellent report and well worth reading—it is one of the best reports that I have read, being simple, clear and definite in its terms—contemplates that legislation will be necessary before its recommendations, particularly those relating to car parking, can be carried out. As one knows, that takes time; and as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham pointed out, it will take a good deal of time before you begin to lay the first brick, or turn over the first sod, or whatever one does in connection with underground car parking. Therefore, the sooner we can go ahead the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, did not speak at all too strongly about the urgency of the matter. It was regarded as urgent in March, 1950—that was the reason why the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee originally took it up. They took up this question of congestion in inner London in March, 1950, because, to use their own words, they
"viewed with considerable concern the daily evidence of traffic congestion in London, and also the additional difficulties that were likely to arise when the Government found it possible to relax the restrictions on the use of motor fuel and the supply of vehicles for the home market."

979
As your Lordships know, both those restrictions have substantially been removed—fuel altogether, and the supply of vehicles for the home market almost entirely. We know that there is a much greater availability of vehicles, and also that, unlike most other commodities, a new vehicle does not replace an old one: what we have is both the old and the new on the road together. The noble Earl who is going to reply, will be aware that vehicles which were manufactured in the year 1930 or in 1931, are being sold to-day second-hand at a price of £10 or £15. All these go on the road, thus adding to the numbers. In fact, between 1949 and 1951 there was an increase of 14 per cent. in the number of vehicles in London—this before any of the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has mentioned took effect. What the actual number is to-day I do not know, but I should be surprised if, as compared with 1949, there were not an increase of something like 50 per cent. in the number of vehicles in inner London.
I do not think it is an exaggeration to talk of strangulation in London. One knows that at certain times of the day, and in certain areas, it is quicker to walk over a distance of a mile and a half or two miles than to attempt to travel by any vehicle. The cost to the community of that kind of thing must be colossal. No calculation has been made. One of the points in the report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee is that we ought to try to get a figure showing what delays to traffic are costing the community. If we got a reliable figure, I think we should be startled by the result. Let me give just one illustration of what this means to the London area. In the last Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, we are told that no fewer than 555,552 people received verbal warnings from the police in respect of motoring offences. Think of it—over half a million people. There were 204,000 prosecutions or written cautions, rather more than half of that 204,000 being, in fact, actual prosecutions.
There are two points about this which I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind. In the first instance, is it really a good thing that so large a proportion of the people of London should "get
980
across" the police in this way? It is not a good thing. I have learned from bitter experience never to argue with a policeman he always has the last word. I say "from bitter experience" and I ought, perhaps, to amplify that: I mean experience in respect of motoring matters. It is not a good thing for the personal relationships between the citizens and the police that more than half a million of the people of London should have to be verbally cautioned by the police about their conduct, and over 200,000 either prosecuted or given written cautions. But, apart from that, think what this means in terms of manpower. If you visualise the number of people employed in the physical process of delivering over half a million verbal warnings, and in the processes connected with 204,000 prosecutions or written cautions, and consider the whole machinery of administration involved, I think it will be found that the cost to the community will be far more than the £15,000 which Lord Teynham has referred to as the possible deficit in providing underground car parks.
Moreover, at a time when we are all conscious of the increasing delinquency in London, particularly among young people, would it not be a much better proposition to turn over the very large number of police who must be involved to the control of delinquency and the detection of offences, rather than to have them harassing the poor motorist? After all, what is the poor motorist to do? The report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee goes into the question as to whether motorists coming into the inner central parts of London, should in any way be restricted. The Committee have come firmly to the conclusion that it is neither practicable nor desirable to stop motorists coming in. Of course, it is not. While I recognise that it might be an economy from the point of view of "vehicle power"—if I may use such an expression—to make people use public transport, the fact remains that people want to get into central London, and they go either by car or by public transport. It is impossible, merely by prohibiting the use of private cars, to prevent people from coming into London. The alternative means of transport would have to be provided at the public expense, and this would involve the public in more capital expendi-

981
ture. As it is, the existing conditions of public transport are not so entirely satisfactory as to make it a really desirable alternative. Omnibuses at busy times are crowded. I have seen queues at bus stops at busy periods extending over a quarter of a mile. So I do not think it would be a really good plan to try to make people abandon their cars and use public transport, at least, until such time as we can provide satisfactory alternative transport.
I ask once more: What is the motorist to do? Assume that he has legitimate and important business. He has his car, and he hopes that, eventually, the use of his car is going to save him a certain amount of time. He attends at a certain place for an appointment, but he may spend half an hour trying to find a suitable place in which to leave his car. In the end, perhaps, he gives it up as a bad job, and leaves his car at a spot in circumstances which he hopes will not lead to his being "pulled up." But when he comes back from his appointment, there is a gentleman in uniform waiting for him, who asks for his name and address and other particulars. That, my Lords, is what is happening. Let me give a personal experience. I lived in a block of flats not far from here, but I just could not get any garage accommodation at all. The result was that I had to leave the car outside the building. I was constantly harassed about this until the time came when I had to decide whether to give up the car or give up my flat. I gave up the flat. That does not indicate a very satisfactory state of affairs. Incidentally, may I say that there are a number of garages in the locality which were requisitioned by the Government at the outbreak of the war and which they still retain? No doubt they are being used quite legitimately and properly, but such use is depriving the citizen of facilities which he might otherwise enjoy. I will tell the noble Earl privately about some of those places: I do not want to go into details about them now.
Undoubtedly a remedy has to be found—and found quickly. The report of the Working Party on Car Parking recommends a number of remedies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I wish to concentrate on one in particular, of which I happen to have had some experience—that is, underground car parking. The
982
report deals with this question in an admirable way; it goes very fully into the question of underground car parking. I think it is fair to say that the Working Party started with no predilection in favour of underground parking, but they have been driven, inevitably and logically, to the conclusion that these parks afford a partial solution—not a complete solution—of the problem of car parking in the centre of London. By a process of elimination we find that there are a limited number of areas where underground car parks can, in fact, be provided.
The noble Earl who is going to reply has read the report, and I am sure he realises the difficulties as I do. There are the underground railways to contend with; there are the services underground to be considered. Many other difficulties with regard to levels, engineering difficulties, come into this matter, so, as I was saying, by a process of elimination the conclusion has been reached that there are four London squares underneath which it would be practicable to provide car parking facilities. There are other London squares where facilities are not needed, and clearly it is no use providing parking facilities at a place where very few cars are parked. And members of the public are not keen, and should not be required, in London, to walk more than a quarter of a mile from the car park to their places of business. Of course, that limits the number of squares which can be used. The Committee recommend Grosvenor Square, Berkeley Square, Cavendish Square and St. James's Square—I think in that order of priority. They recommend that a start should be made on Grosvenor Square.
There is one point on which I would take issue with the Committee, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, also mentioned—the question of mechanical car parking. It may well be that at the time the report was under consideration mechanical car parking had not been brought up to the necessary level of efficiency. But in my opinion—and I have seen something of the working of mechanical car parking—it is to-day at a stage when we should be justified in giving it serious consideration. There are two main reasons why we should do this. The first is that it would enable us to house something like 50 per cent. more cars in a given space than by ordinary means of parking; and secondly, a great

983
deal of time is saved in ingress and egress. Those are two important factors. I realise that there may be objections raised on the ground of amenity. As I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is going to say a word on that subject, I shall not say much. I do not accept the contention myself, but at the worst we have to weigh up the question of amenity against the public interest and convenience, as we so often have to do in town planning matters. Of course, we are all prepared to pay a price for amenity, but I doubt, to take an extreme case, whether one tree is worth an hour of delay every day to most of the business men of London. We have to be realistic about this, and judge whether, in the long run, the injury to amenity, if it really is an injury, can be seriously set against the immense convenience that would arise if we dealt with this problem of car parking.
What I want to do is to urge upon the Government the pressing nature of this problem. I do not think it is necessary to say much, because every Member of your Lordships' House must have personal experience of it. It really is grave. Apart from anything else, it is fraying to one's nerves, when in a hurry to keep an appointment, to find oneself stuck, say, at the corner of Wellington Street, Strand, for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes with no hope, as it seems to one at the time, of ever being able to get out of it. I hope the noble Earl who is going to reply will be able to accept the terms of this Motion and tell us when the Government are going to implement the report. I hope he will be able to give us the comforting news that it will be soon. One last word. I want to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said—namely, that the recommendations of the Working Party must be taken as a whole. They are interrelated, and it is no use trying to implement one and think that thereby we have solved the problem. I have seen something in the Press about providing meters for car parks. If that were all that was going to be done—and I understand that even that would require legislation—it would be just tinkering with the problem. It might relieve a tiny part of the pressure, but the only way to solve this is to deal with the problem as
984
a whole. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure us that Her Majesty's Government are dealing with the matter in that spirit and will be able to present us in the very near future with a comprehensive plan for dealing with this most urgent problem.
6.16 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that this important Motion has not excited more interest in your Lordships' House than apparently it has done, because it appears to me to be one of great interest and one also in which there is room for some difference of opinion. Since 1919—that is to say, for about thirty-four years—I have driven a car almost every day that I have been in London and on a thousand-and-one nights as well. Therefore, I can claim to speak with at least some little experience on this subject. I confess also to being an inveterate short-term and long-term parker. Before dealing with car-parking may I say a word about roads? My experience has not been so unfortunate as that of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I have driven thousands of times from the neighbourhood of the Albert Hall to the Mansion House and I consider myself very unlucky if I take more than thirty-five minutes on that journey. The only place where I encounter considerable delay is in Fleet Street, and the reason for that is that there is a cross-roads at Ludgate Circus. Every other junction is a roundabout. Hyde Park Corner is a roundabout, and so almost is Trafalgar Square. The great solution to the speed of traffic is as many roundabouts as possible. The reason that Oxford Street is the worst street in London is that there are no roundabouts in it. If one could be created at Tottenham Court Road and another at Oxford Circus, it would be found that the speed of traffic in Oxford Street would be greatly increased.
It is deeply disappointing to see that local authorities sometimes do things to impede the movement of traffic. I refer specially at this moment to the junction of Bruton Street with Bond Street, one of the worst cross-roads in the whole of the Metropolitan area. Here the Germans were kind enough to blow down two buildings at the corner of Bruton Street and Bond Street on

985
either side of the road. If ever there was a chance to broaden the streets at that point, here was the chance. Yet, incredibly enough, a new building has been put up on the west side of Bond Street on the same building frontage as before, and an hotel is to be built on the other side of the road, not quite on the same frontage, but only arcaded ten feet back. If there is one thing which creates traffic more than another it is an hotel. I suppose this is a free country and it may not be possible to prevent people from building an hotel where they wish to do so, but at least the borough surveyor could sacrifice some of his rate able value and take steps to set back the frontage so as to widen one of the sides of the worst place in the whole of the Metropolitan area. I see there is some talk, which may well have escaped the notice of noble Lords, about the rebuilding of the Berkeley Hotel by certain financiers. There, again, is an exceedingly crowded spot, and I hope that if that hotel is to be rebuilt it will be set back at least fifteen feet. Unless our borough surveyors and other people look years ahead, we shall never solve this problem of traffic.
At the same time, do not let us overstate. The way in which we run our traffic is the admiration of other countries, and this problem of car parking is mainly confined in extreme form to two areas, one the City of London, and the other the West End of London. The recommendations of the Working Party are excellent, but they will take a long time to implement, and they will be costly. Legislation will be required to implement them, and it will be highly controversial. If you want to make a car park under Berkeley Square, it will mean the destruction of fifty or sixty trees, at least; æsthetic societies will be up against you, and to get it through will be a controversial business. Even when you have done that and made Berkeley Square a desert, as the Working Party report admits, it will solve only about half the problem.
The first step surely must be the establishment of a traffic corps, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Teynham. The police cannot possibly take on this extra work: they are undermanned as it is, and they have all they can do to cope with crime; the less they have to do with
986
traffic, the better. Furthermore, if parking meters are to be instituted, the law must be changed, too. Noble Lords will know how these parking meters, as used in Canada and the United States, are operated. They are supervised by the police. A man on a motor cycle goes round, and wherever he see that the car has overstayed its time limit he takes down its number, says that the fine will be one dollar or two dollars, as the case may be, and puts a card on the driver's seat. The driver goes round to the police station the following day and pays in his one or two dollars, unless, of course, he is going to dispute it. In this country, however, as your Lordships know, the policeman has to go to the police court and give evidence and waste his time there; a letter has to be sent to you and a summons served on you; and you can, or need not, go, as you please. There is all the paraphernalia of the law. This parking meter system could not be established under the present legislation. The law must be changed, and the traffic corps must be established in order to carry out the system.
The whole trouble lies with the long-term parker. Eliminate him, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be able to get to his office in great comfort, and will not have to walk more than a quarter of a mile. Surely, there are only two ways of dealing with the long-term parker: either he must be discouraged from going into Central London, or you must provide a place for him to go to where he will not be a nuisance. We long-term parkers recognise that we are a nuisance. It is an outrage that anyone should go and park his car in Davies Street in front of Lord Courtauld-Thomson's flat, so that for years he has been unable to approach his own front door comfortably. I can well sympathise with him, and with all ratepayers who are so treated. Therefore, long-term parkers should be discouraged. The only way to do that is to make life unbearable for them, until they do keep out of an area.
But one does not want to make life unbearable for anybody unnecessarily. Therefore, can we not use some imagination to improve our existing facilities? I have ceased to take my car into the City of London, because of the great congestion there. I leave it elsewhere, and

987
go into the City by tube. Why cannot other people do the same? What the long-term parker will do, until he is prevented from doing it, is to drive his car as near as he possibly can to his office, because, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, he does not like walking more than a quarter of a mile; and there he will leave it all day long. Can he not take his car to the vicinity of a tube station and then take the tube to his office? Of course, we do not want cars left in some car park and people to take a bus, because that, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin said, would only increase the road congestion. But there is the tube, which is a much quicker form of transport.
Are we using the Royal Parks as much as we might? There seem to me to be several places. Take, for instance, Constitution Hill, from the Arch to the vicinity of the Palace. On the left hand side of the road there is a sandy track which is never used. I drive along there practically every day, and I have never seen anybody on that track for years, except an occasional mounted policeman exercising his horse. Hundreds of cars could be parked along that track without being a nuisance to anybody, and all those car owners could step into the Hyde Park Corner or Green Park tube stations and be carried to their destination. Similarly, why is the road along the north of the Serpentine kept empty? Hundreds of cars could be parked along that road every day. If we use a little imagination and thought, we shall find other places.
LORD SILKIN: Does the noble Lord realise that in some cases you have to use your imagination to find a tube at all? There are a limited number of tubes.
LORD BLACKFORD: I cannot follow that interruption at all. Surely, we are all acquainted with the tube railway, and where the stations are. Certainly these permanent parkers of whom I speak know where the stations are. Why should they not be made to use them?
LORD SILKIN: But there are very few tubes in South London, for instance, and in many other parts.
LORD BLACKFORD: I am dealing now with the West End of London. I cannot pretend that I know London south
988
of the Thames so well as I know London north of the Thames. But the report of this Working Party does not deal with London south of the Thames; it deals entirely with London north of the Thames. All the diagrams are in connection with that part of London, and that is the part with which I am dealing. Let us do one thing at a time. I say there are many places which we could find where long-term parkers could put their cars and continue their journey by tube. But they will not do that until they are forced to do it. Therefore, before you can start forcing them to do it, you must create a traffic corps which will bring that about.
It is late, and I do not wish to delay your Lordships too long. However, I do want to point out that the City of London presents a completely different problem. There are no places under which you can dig underground garages in the City of London, except Finsbury Square, and the traffic there is so light that it certainly would not be worth doing. A further point is that the City of London has been more destroyed than any other part of London, and up to date the long-term parker has been able to make full use of that temporary advantage. But that use is gradually disappearing. For instance, the Fore Street area, which, as your Lordships know, is behind the Guildhall, is totally destroyed, and all day long literally hundreds of cars are parked, top to tail, along those narrow lanes. That will not be possible when that part of London is rebuilt. Close to the Mansion House, in Walbrook, there is a large space on which about 130 cars are parked every day. Within a few months that space will be denied them, due to the erection of Bucklersbury House, which will take up the whole area.
There are only two remedies for this state of affairs in the City of London. One is to make every new developer include in his design a garage in the basement. That has not hitherto been done, and it is only a partial solution. The other solution—apart from what I have been saying about preventing the long-term parker from coming into the City at all—is the erection of multi-storey garages above ground. While the City is so destroyed, now is the time for the City Corporation or the London County

989
Council, whoever is the final authority, to acquire sites for the erection of these multi-storey garages. I feel bound to declare a personal interest here, because I am deputy-chairman of a company which owns a site between Cannon Street Station and London Bridge which is about one and a half acres in extent, and is eminently suited for that very purpose. That one and a half acres could be covered with a multi-storey garage, and there could be a flat roof on which the helicopters of the future could land with complete comfort. I must not pursue that matter, because, as I say, I have an interest in it.
Finally, I wish to point out that by diagonal parking—what I call 45 degree parking—you can get in two or three times the number of cars than you can do by top and tail parking, because every top and tail parker will always leave himself room to get out—that is obvious. The one disadvantage is that when the parker comes to take his car away he has to reverse out, and that may cause congestion. There are streets in which diagonal parking could perfectly well be used. Albemarle Street is one, and there are several broad streets of that kind where diagonal parking could be used. I put forward these few suggestions because they could be carried out at once, and they would cost practically nothing. I should like to add one more, and that is that in certain squares—for instance, Bloomsbury Square—ten yards could easily be knocked off the whole circle and diagonal parking introduced there, and thus about four times the number of cars could be parked there. That will do no harm to the amenities of the Square at all; no trees will be destroyed, or anything of that sort. Our local authorities might use a great deal more imagination and improvisation than they do now. The Working Party's solution cannot be implemented for three years at least. By the time legislation is passed and the work carried out, it will be three years ahead. Cannot we do something during the intervening three years greatly to improve this nuisance?
6.34 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Teynham has said in proposing this Motion. I should also like to pay a tribute to the Working Party
990
who produced this excellent report. To my mind, they have made a thorough reconnaisance of the whole position, and they have put before us not only their considered opinion as to how to improve the present position but also, very fairly, the great difficulties in doing so.
Apparently we are all agreed this evening in thinking that something has to done; and done quickly. I agree with those speakers who have said that this matter is bound up with the whole of this difficult road problem which is facing us at the present time. This evening, we are dealing only with car parking, though, it is true to say that if we can partially sole the car parking problem in London it will greatly ease the traffic flow through the streets. The present rate of increase of cars registered every year is I suppose, in a way, encouraging. But, at the same time, it is alarming, not only for its added congestion to the roads, and danger to life and limb, but also to the parking problem in all our towns, and particularly in London.
I feel that we have to meet this problem somehow. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that there are certain methods of meeting it, not visualised in the report, which could be, and should be, put in hand at once. The report is quite definite on the subject. As I say, it made a thorough reconnaisance of the situation, and put forward definite schemes for at least partially overcoming the difficulty. The Working Party have realised that there are only three methods: underground and above ground parking, and the use of meters, which I think would be chiefly important in paying for the expense of the garages. Perhaps a further method is the control of side streets for parking purposes. The Working Party make one interesting and important suggestion which has been touched upon; that is, that in all new building development, especially business premises, Government offices and the like, wherever possible—of course, it is not always possible—parking facilities should be allowed for in the plans of the building. I notice that that has been done in the new Government offices in Whitehall. There are quite good parking facilities there, not only for those who work there, but for the casual visitor who may stay for only a short time. I do not know what the plans for the new Colonial

991
Office are, but I hope they have made the same sort of provision there.
We have heard a good deal about the use of bombed sites. I wish it had been found possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, suggested, for the Government to take over some of these bombed sites, or at least for somebody to take them over, before they were acquired for other purposes, and to erect multi-storey garages there. For instance, the hotel site in Bond Street is just the place. It is there, perhaps, that parking facilities are most needed in the central area. Those spaces are gradually disappearing, and it may be that if something is not done quickly in that respect it will become increasingly difficult to find any sites upon which such buildings could be erected.
The Working Party came to the conclusion—as I think most of us this evening have come to the conclusion—that the solution lies largely in these excavated sites. It was to be expected that when the suggestion was first put forward there would be something of an outcry with regard to the loss of amenities. That is quite understandable and natural. The London population are rather conservative; we value our fine old squares, with their great lime trees, as a prize feature of the city. But we are familiar nowadays with the constant fight between necessity and amenity whenever any big new project is forthcoming. I have in mind what happened some time ago. Your Lordships will remember, for instance, that a power station was to be erected in Durham which would have wrecked one of the finest architectural views in the country. People got together and found an alternative site, and everybody was happy. But in the question of London parking, I do not see that there is any alternative, unless it be that we allow things to go from bad to worse—and that they will do very rapidly.
If we ponder it, need there be any real loss of amenity? If we look at some of the old prints of London—two of which are reproduced in the report—we find that the original architect never designed these squares except as open spaces, without large trees. Perhaps there were quite small trees, but there was nothing on the scale of the tree growth that we have in many other squares at the present time. They were, as I say, open spaces, giving
992
a full view of the surrounding architecture—perhaps in those days a little better worth looking at than to-day—but now around our squares we have fine buildings which cannot be seen, especially in the summer time, because of these great trees. Moreover, your Lordships may think that a complete circle of cars is not exactly an addition to the amenities of a square. If we could get some of them placed underground or out of the way, the amenities would not suffer but would be greatly improved. And it must be remembered that a great many of these trees are very ancient. I do not know what the anticipated life of a plane tree is, but some of these must be very old indeed. I have not noticed any great effort to plant seedlings to take their place in our squares. So in the course of time these trees will either have to be lopped or will become ungainly and have to be removed. If some of them were left round the fringes they could probably be worked in with the construction of the park.
I have just one suggestion of my own to make—it was touched upon by Lord Blackford, and I entirely agree with him. In many of these great squares, Russell Square, Bedford Square, St. James's Square and so forth, parking could be enormously improved if the orders were definitely understood that cars should be parked boot to kerb—as I should prefer. This is done in many squares where you have two or three park attendants, because they instruct drivers. But if you could get that done all over the place, it would add enormously to the number of cars which could be parked there—probably it would doublę it. I suggest to the noble Earl that a simple means of getting that done would be to put up a fairly prominent notice on the parking sign itself, perhaps underneath the "P" to the effect that "All cars must be parked boot to kerb." I think that that direction would be obeyed, and that we should then find that these squares, where the traffic allows of course, would permit of a great deal more parking than many of them do at present.
We all know that this parking problem is tied up entirely with the road problem of the country. We realise that, in this case as in others, the financial difficulties are dominant. But I am quite certain that the Ministry of Transport have their pigeon-holes stuffed with plans for the

993
improvement of our parking which could be implemented as soon as a sign came from the Treasury. We know that the police and all others concerned are doing their utmost to deal with the almost impossible problem of traffic in the streets of London. I was listening-in the other evening to one of Alistair Cooke's letters from New York, in which he described parking conditions in that city. He said that the cleverest man to-day in New York is the man who can find a place to park his car. He gave a most amusing account of the terrible penalties which he had to undergo because he inadvertently parked his car on the wrong side of the road. We have not yet got to that point in London—London, of course, is a different place from New York; we have many more open spaces. But with this great increase in the number of cars we are working towards an impossible position. With other noble Lords, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will see their way at least to allow a pilot scheme to be put into operation so that in the course of time, this great problem may be solved.
6.45 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, it is an encouraging circumstance that this one isolated aspect of the traffic problem should be brought before your Lordships' House. But I fear that we shall get, at the end of this debate, the same sort of stereotyped answer which we always get when this question is raised in your Lordships' House. I do not hope for very much until Her Majesty's Government get down to business in a big way. It is no use the Government's fobbing off the House with the same old clichés that we have been accustomed to hearing for years whenever one asks a Question or raises this matter in debate. This matter is becoming more and more vital, and the Government really must do something. After all, there are millions of motorists in this country. They pay £1 million a day in taxation and get little, if anything, for it. Furthermore, the cost of everything we use, of everything that comes to us in our daily life, at some stage or other goes on to the road; and the delays in its getting to us add to its cost. That position cannot go on indefinitely without strangling one of the most flourishing and buoyant industries in this country—the motor industry. And I do not see how we can afford to allow
994
it to go on any longer. Unless and until the Government "get down" to the problem, we shall get no improvement; and there is no sign, in the answers which we receive from the Government, that they appreciate its seriousness. We get plenty of lip service paid to the idea, but that is all.
I want to talk to your Lordships about this parking problem. It is certainly not peculiar to London, or to any city in this country or in Europe. Every city is plagued with it. The state of affairs in Paris has to be seen to be believed: it is one stage worse than in this country; it is quite incredible. If anyone wants to see what the position is like in London, let him go to any road leading into or out of the capital at about nine o'clock in the morning of any day; then let him go to the same road—or, indeed, to any other road leading out of London—between five o'clock and six o'clock in the evening. He will then see thousands of cars rushing out of London which have come up in the morning. Their numbers are more or less outlined in this very valuable report of the Working Party.
That is the real, the long-term, problem. The man who lives out of London saves a lot of trouble if he comes up by car, rather than by train, and parks his car as near as possible to his office, and then goes away again in the evening. But it is bringing London almost to a full stop. The Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police says that the prospect is alarming, and he goes on to say, with regard to the problem of waiting vehicles, which is the cause of so much congestion:
"I cannot urge too strongly that the highest possible priority be given to schemes which will relieve the situation of those places where the congestion is heaviest."
He points out in this report that the trouble is greatest in the central area of London. The Working Party talk about the development of parking sites. They point out that the parking sites are getting "beautifully less" and that about 3,500 more vehicles will probably have to be accommodated somewhere in some car park or other as a result of the development of these parking sites.
The Working Party then go on to refer to this question of parking meters. The parking meters are, I think, a questionable recommendation. In fact, the only

995
fault I can find with the report of the Working Party is that they advocate the use of parking meters. Parking meters pay no attention whatever to the varying sizes of cars, and may actually result in a considerable waste of space unless diagonal parking, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, can be adopted. It is quite obvious that in the crowded streets of London diagonal parking is, for the most part, quite impossible. There are a few places, like Portland Place, where it can be and is adopted; but for the most part diagonal parking is simply not possible. If you have parking meters put at fixed points along the street, they will naturally be placed to suit the biggest type of car to be found there, whereas not all cars are of the same size. These meters may result in a decrease in the amount of parking space available.
That brings me to another point—the size of cars. Everybody who watches the traffic in the London streets will notice the tremendous difference there is in the size of cars. A man will drive up to London in a large American car, or something like that, which takes up a colossal amount of space, whereas another man will drive up in one of the much more easily handled smaller cars, of which you can probably fit two into the space normally occupied by one large car. It seems to me that, if we could do something to encourage the use of smaller cars in congested areas, that would be an advantage. The large car is much more suitable for handling outside towns, in the country areas. I wish that it were possible to pay more attention to the size of cars in London, perhaps by saying that people who have large cars can use the streets only during certain hours. I do not know what the answer is; I do not like to have in operation a restrictive policy of that sort. There is another point which seems to have had very little attention paid to it in London, and that is the policy of arcading streets. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the Government have any ideas on that. Everybody will know what I mean by "arcading": simply pushing back the actual shop front and building an arcade to take the weight of the building above it. By using that
996
method we could increase the width of our streets—I do not say that it could be done everywhere, but if it were possible to put arcading in certain streets, I think it might be a great advantage. From the point of view of pedestrians, it would also make the streets much more pleasant in bad weather.
Then again there is the design of works. This is no new problem. The Bressey Report came out years and years ago—I think it was during the 1920's—and was promptly pigeon-holed. Sir Charles Bressey gave endless thought to the problem of London. He recommended a system of ring roads to take the traffic round the centre, rather than straight through it. His Report received little enough attention at the time, and ever since, though lip service has been paid to it by various authorities, nothing whatever has been done, with the result that the alignment which he contemplated for many of his ring roads has been built up, and it is no longer practical politics to think about it. The principle that Sir Charles Bressey advocated may still be possible in certain directions, but again it requires that the Government should go into the matter. The Government ought to go into it, as it seems to me, through the medium either of the London Traffic Advisory Committee or of some other such body, and perhaps with the co-operation of the London County Council it might still be possible to do things in certain areas. I do not know, but I wish that something of the sort were possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I thought, was rather severe on the Metropolitan Police and the steps which, in their desperation, they have so far taken to try to remedy a certain amount of congestion in the central area. I do not condemn quite so strongly as he did the efforts that they have made. I dare say there are one or two cases where perhaps they were a little ill-advised but, on the whole, I think that the "No waiting" boards have been of great assistance to traffic. At any rate, they indicate to the driver who perhaps does not know his London so well as some do exactly where he can go and where he cannot go. It gives him a chance to avoid causing an obstruction to the traffic. I think that further consideration might be given to the working of that scheme, and no

997
doubt it will be; but I hope we shall not be too quick to condemn the efforts of the Metropolitan Police, because they are saddled with the most appalling problem. I am delighted that they are making these experiments.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, said about roundabouts. Roundabouts are all very well, provided that they have sufficient radius. Endless complication has been caused in the past by roundabouts of insufficient radius where a vehicle towing a trailer could not get round. Roundabouts are not the best way of assisting the traffic flow. They are not nearly so good, for example, as the "fly-over" and "fly-under" systems that one sees in other countries. Nothing of the sort has been tried in this country. I do not believe there is a single "fly-over" and "fly-under" system in this country—at any rate not the sort that one finds in America, Sweden and other countries. I wish it were possible for the Government or other authority generally to make some use of the "fly-over and "fly-under" system. It is an enormous relief to traffic wherever it can be installed and tried. I must not take up too much of your Lordships' time. I only hope that the Government will be able to give us an assurance that they really mean business, and that this valuable report of the Working Party will not be put into another pigeon-hole and left there.
6.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has raised this question. It is one of great and increasing gravity, and it is undoubtedly causing keen public anxiety, an anxiety which is not, I think, exclusively that of the motorists. I should like to begin by discussing some of the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in his interesting and constructive speech, and also in those of other noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, made two observations with regard to the police. The noble Lord is of the opinion that the police have anticipated the report by unilateral action in the parking arrangements in inner London. Whereas the report emphasises, I think on page 9, that the Working Party's plan consists of several interdependent proposals, it would be fundamentally unsound merely
998
to approve one or two of them. Lord Teynham also made an interesting suggestion which was afterwards echoed by other noble Lords, with regard to a body of special traffic police to operate for a start, if I understood him rightly, in inner London. I will certainly bring both those matters to the attention of my right honourable friend. But I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I should have thought that police questions such as these were the responsibility of the Home Office rather than of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, since the Home Secretary is, of course, responsible for the police control of traffic.
I will also undertake to see that Lord Teynham's proposal for a parking panel to report to the Minister, and his other suggestion for central co-ordination with a central co-ordinator, are carefully considered. But I can tell him now that so far no steps have been taken to set up a parking panel. The noble Lord spoke of the advantages of mechanical parking. I gather that he was not in full agreement with the report on this question. I understand that there are two views about it, and I am sure that the Minister will consider this matter carefully. I might remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend has an expert staff which is constantly watching and reporting upon developments of that kind. Lord Silkin asked whether it was only a question of time before this report was acted upon. I think he will be able to draw the necessary inference before I have done. The cautioning and the prosecutions to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred I dislike, I am sure, every bit as much as he does; but I would say that all this stems from the central evil—so, of course, does the waste of manpower and the diversion of the police from duties far more rewarding to the community—and I cannot see that these unfortunate facts will be altered until the main problem has been solved. I should like most wholeheartedly to associate myself with what the noble Lord said about nerves as the result of parking difficulties. I would put it higher than that; I would say that sometimes one appears to be approaching a form of insanity.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, made an interesting speech, and I am in agreement with his remarks about Bruton Street and the proposed erection of a

999
new hotel on the site of the Berkeley, although that may appear a little remote from the Motion which is before your Lordships to-night. However, I may tell him that the L.C.C. has secured that there shall be a car bay, so that cars with passengers will not have to wait in the main traffic stream in Conduit Street. Lord Blackford also supported Lord Teynham's proposal for a special police corps. I have already undertaken to place this proposal before the Minister. I would ask the noble Lord to remember that the question of using any parts of the Royal Parks may encounter severe opposition from the Ministry of Works and the Crown Commissioners.
I now come to the observations of Lord Hampton. I was interested by what he said about the amenities of squares. Lord Hampton did not mind the felling of trees, and thought that the squares might resume their original appearance as open spaces with trees round the fringes. Lord Silkin, I think, shared that view. Of course, this is a matter of opinion, and certainly others will not share the views of the noble Lords. Some may view the removal of trees, with their leafy foliage, which is so cool and pleasant on a hot summer's day, with very different feelings. However, I shall have more to say about that a little later. I should like to say that I, personally, strongly approved of Lord Hampton's suggestion that cars should be parked boot to kerb and that notices should be put up to this effect, and I will see that due attention is given to it. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a late but welcome appearance on the list of speakers. I had almost despaired of him; but no, he appeared at the last moment deus ex machina. I am sorry that the noble Earl thinks so badly of the answer which I had not begun to give when he was speaking. He might have received one more satisfactory to his ardent nature had he bothered to give me notice of his rather late intervention. I would also add that his description of previous answers to him in this House struck me as being grossly unfair.
The noble Earl was critical of the proposal for parking meters. I am afraid that my knowledge of this machine is not sufficient for me to follow the noble Earl in this respect. I was, however, impressed to read in the report that they
1000
were in use in 3,000 American cities and that, even though there had been qualms about them originally, many people had been won round as the result of experience. I myself have used them in America without any untoward results. I would also remind the noble Earl that the ideal machine must be a matter presumably of experience and detail, and that legislation would be required before the principle could be adopted at all. With regard to the arcading of streets, which the noble Earl says will increase the width of the streets, I think it can be done, but it is not easy. It can be done when redevelopment is proceeding, but there are difficulties. For example, you would have to have a long street all of which was being redeveloped.
My Lords, I do not wish to take too long. The Working Party realised that their recommendations would take many years to carry out and, as we have heard, they urged the Government to commence with a pilot scheme of four garages in the four squares of which we have heard—Grosvenor Square, Cavendish Square, Berkeley Square and St. James's Square. According to their calculations, as Lord Teynham said, after taking into account the revenue anticipated from parking meters, the loss on providing and running these four garages would be in the neighbourhood of £15,000 a year. Since the report has been published, there has been a good deal of favourable comment in some sections of the Press on the recommendations. There has, however, been serious criticism of the effect which the carrying out of the recommendations would have on the amenities of the London squares. We have heard Lord Hampton's point of view, and I think he will have many supporters. Lord Silk in said, "We must weigh very carefully the value of trees against the immediate problem with which we are trying to grapple." None the less, there has been serious criticism on those grounds; in particular, if these large car parks were built under the squares, undoubtedly several trees would have to be felled and I imagine others might be adversely affected at their roots. This is a prospect which, as one noble Lord said, would arouse considerable opposition in æsthetic circles. In spite of what Lord Hampton said, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Minister's powers

1001
in this direction—they can be found at page 12 of the report:
"Without prejudice to the Minister's action in any actual case that may arise, it can be said that any project involving wholesale destruction of trees or other drastic alteration of character in any of the famous or historic Squares of London would prima facie be a case that the Minister would call in for decision by himself and in respect of which, before making his decision, he would be likely to order a public inquiry so as to allow for a full expression of views."
Since the report was published, my right honourable friend has been asked several questions in another place, and he has congratulated the authors of that report on the excellent work they have put into it. He has said that he has given it his careful attention, and he hopes to reach a decision fairly soon. Noble Lords will, therefore, I think, not expect me to say any more at this stage than that the Government fully appreciate the importance of tackling the present congestion in inner London. They are not in a state of lethargy as Lord Howe would have us believe. At this moment, they are giving urgent and careful attention to points raised in the report, and they intend to announce their conclusions as soon as possible. No thinking person, in fact no one but an imbecile, can fail to be profoundly disturbed at the present state of affairs. While the production of motor vehicles, as noble Lords have pointed out, is rising in leaps and bounds, the ancient, and often narrow, streets of London remain unaltered. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, brought out very clearly, I thought, the alarming increase in the number of vehicles—and he is perfectly right. And this increase has led many people to a sombre anticipation of complete stagnation. I trust that the noble Lord who moved the Motion which has been the subject of debate, and also my old adversary Lord Howe, will not regard this as a stalling answer camouflaging vacillating purpose. That is far from being the case. I have good reason to hope that before long noble Lords will have news of definite steps to be taken.
7.12 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the support which he has given me. I think he said that we ought to try to
1002
find out what is the, total loss to industry that may result from the heavy congestion of traffic in the City of London. It may interest your Lordships if I give you a figure relating to New York. They have similar difficulties there and they have carried out a careful survey by means of a somewhat similar organisation to our Working Party. This is what they report:
"There's a one billion dollar a year blight plaguing New York City; almost two-thirds of the city's fiscal 1953 budget. That's the conclusion of the Citizens Traffic Safety Board, Inc., after a study of the cost of traffic congestion in this city."
So they are very much alive to the size of the problem in New York, and they are getting on with the job of dealing with it. They are building numbers of both above-ground and underground garages. I feel sure that we ought to do the same in London as soon as possible.
I was glad to hear that Lord Silkin agreed that no restriction should be, placed on motorists coming into inner London by car, and I quite agree with the arguments which he put forward. I was a little surprised at what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about possible restrictions on motorists. Indeed, I may say I was most surprised to hear it coming from him. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, certainly seemed to have attained considerable success in making the journey from the Albert Hall to the Mansion House, seeing that he did it in twenty minutes. I cannot say that I have been able to do that yet. With regard to the noble Lord's suggestion that motorists should leave their cars in the vicinity of underground railway stations and complete their journeys by train, I would point out that the trouble is that, generally speaking, there are no parking grounds at the underground stations. So I do not think the noble Lord's suggestion would help very much. What we must concentrate on is providing proper parking places both in underground buildings and above the ground. I was a little dissatisfied to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, that the parking advisory panel has not yet been set up. I trust he will do all he can to impress on the Minister of Transport the importance of starting this panel as soon as possible. Without such a panel we have no co-ordinating influence at all in the matter of parking in London. In

1003
view of the assurances given by the noble Earl in his speech, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before we adjourn, I have to inform your
1004
Lordships that there will be a meeting of the House to-morrow morning, December 4, at 11.15, for the formal business of receiving Bills from another place.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock