Lords Sitting of 5 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Viscount Greenwood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to move, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred not to pass Clauses 101, 190, 196 and 203 without special attention. The noble Lord said: My Lords, all over the country at the present moment there is a growing alarm at the ever rising toll of local rates. Part of this rising cost is due, of course, to the widening functions of government. We all know how any enterprising head of a department, whether of the Government, a local authority or any other body, will always seek to enlarge the size and enhance the prestige of his department, and he will invariably be able to produce arguments that in so doing he is acting in the interests of the taxpayer or the ratepayer, as the case may be. Functions tend to expand and also rates expand, and one wonders at times whether there is any connection between the two. Meanwhile, the tradesmen are doubly hit, because they stand aside and see local authorities taking the bread out of their mouths, and they look forward in due course to paying for the result of those activities in higher rates. They are doubly hit.
Now one way to stop the expansion of unnecessary functions is to see that unnecessary powers are not there, and I am asking your Lordships to suggest to the Committee examining this particular Bill that they should pay special attention to whether certain powers claimed under certain clauses are really necessary. Of the four clauses I mention, Clause 190 deals with the question of printing on behalf of other local authorities. I can only say that a printer once told me that there are more bankruptcies in his trade
978
than in any other, from which one can draw two possible conclusions: first, that competitive printing tenders must be freely available in most parts of the country; and secondly, that any local authority going into the printing business may not be doing so in the real interests of its ratepayers.
Clause 196 deals with agency buying—buying in bulk and spreading it over other local authorities—and Clause 203 deals similarly with reference to services. Clause 101 is a rather different type of clause in which, I understand, an exception from the almost universal law is asked. Apparently the general law is that a local authority can make one connect up one's premises with a sewer only if one's drainage arrangements are unsatisfactory, whereas this Private Bill seeks to allow the local authority to order a person to connect up his premises with the sewer, notwithstanding that his existing arrangements may be quite satisfactory. There is one precedent for this particular power, and that is in the case of Eton. There may be some special sanitary problems connected with Eton, of which I can know nothing, but I see no particular reason why they should be extended to the whole county of Berkshire. I am not seeking to have an argument on the Floor of this House over these matters. I ask your Lordships to send them to the Committee upstairs to hear the arguments. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred not to pass Clauses 101, 190, 196 and 203 without special attention.—(Lord Hawke.)
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have no desire to oppose this Motion of my noble friend. Let these clauses be examined by all means. But if his reference to the Select Committee, by implication, suggests that your Lordships' House in general see something objectionable about these clauses and think they ought possibly to be struck out, it will, I think, be very unfortunate. It is for that reason that, although I have no connection with Berkshire, when I was approached as a county councillor to say something upon this Bill I agreed to do so. My noble friend has talked about the great volume of administrative

979
responsibility which has of recent years been put upon local authorities. That administrative responsibility has not been accompanied by much delegation of authority. Most of that remains in Whitehall, and what arises from it is that a vast mass of paper goes up and down practically daily from the provinces to Whitehall—maps, plans and reports of all kinds. As an indication, I would say that in my own county, when a development plan under the Town and Country Planning Act is being submitted, we estimate that some 1,200 documents have to be sent to Whitehall.
As my noble friend Lord Hawke has so well pointed out, coupled with all this activity, and in part arising from it, there has been a considerable increase in the county rate, with the result that the unfortunate county councillor is under a sort of crossfire as between the Ministry issuing regulations which still, on the whole, tend to increase the administrative and paper work, and, on the other hand, the great bodies of ratepayers demanding instant economy. So, almost in desperation, the county councils are now looking round to see in what way these two incompatibilities can be met and more economies made. My noble friend seemed to suggest that the printing was going to be a great expense to the county. One of the main objects of the Berkshire County Council, so I surmise, is to achieve further economy. If that is so and if the Committee can be so satisfied. I think the Berkshire County Council should be congratulated, and not reprimanded.
I do not wish to say anything about Clause 101 for it is a highly technical point. Let it be examined. But there is a question of principle arising on the printing argument advanced by my noble friend. There, I must say that I can see very little that is likely to be at all harmful. After all, for years past, county councils have had powers to print. The West Sussex County Council, under whose benevolent administration I hope that my noble friend thrives, nobody can describe as a very revolutionary body, or one that is hostile to private enterprise. For some years past the West Sussex County Council have been doing their own printing.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord and ask, as a matter of information, whether the West Sussex County Council are selling printing in the open market? Because, if so, I should like to know about it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: No but I was going on to that point. I do not think anybody suggests that they, or the Berkshire County Council, should be selling printing generally.
LORD HAWKE: It is the power they are seeking.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With respect. I was going on to say that I think this power to print is one which is possessed not only by county councils and county borough councils, but also by district councils; therefore, under the law as it stands there is apparently no objection to having half-a-dozen printing presses within a county. This seems to me to be an argument for saying: "Instead of having theoretically a number of different printing units, let us have, for economy's sake, a joint printing establishment." The only reason why that cannot be done, as it can in an all-purposes authority like a county borough, is rather technical and recondite. I cannot see that there is any more infringement of the domain of private enterprise than is permitted under the existing law. The same argument generally, it seems to me, applies to Clause 196. I understand that there is an objection to Clause 203, and that will be argued, in any case, in Committee. As I say, I have no objection whatever to these clauses being examined, more especially as I understand that the Berkshire County Council themselves are seeking to amend, in small particulars. Clause 190. But I think that the Bill should proceed to the Committee without any kind of stigma attaching to it, and on the whole, it should have the blessing of your Lordships' House.
2.48 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I venture to intervene for a moment or two only in order that the impression should not get abroad that this is a sort of private row between noble Lords on the other side. I am sure that the Select Committee will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for this

981
Motion. We do not propose to divide the House against the Motion, but I hope that the carrying of it will not imply that there is anything at all exceptional, apart from one clause mentioned by the noble Lord who has just spoken, in the provisions of this Private Bill. Now is not the time or place to argue the clauses but, with the assistance, as I am sure the Select Committee will have, of learned counsel, and the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, no doubt the Select Committee will come to a right decision in regard to these clauses.
I want only to say this, in regard to the printing: that it would be a mistake to assume from this Bill that the council are going out into the market, competing with private enterprise. Nothing of the kind. All that is provided for in this Bill, as I understand it—and if there is any misunderstanding, it can be removed in the Committee stage—is that they will do the printing for themselves and for the subsidiary authorities like the rural district councils or the parish councils. The powers for printing have been powers—"functions," to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—of all-purposes authorities for over thirty years. It is a mistake to regard the work which they do as printing in the ordinary sense of the term. The matter printed is reports, schedules and things of that kind which are obviously better dealt with internally by the council concerned. But now is not the time or place to argue this point. The clauses will be argued upstairs, with the benefit of advice. Like the noble Viscount, Lard Gage, I feel that it would be a mistake to let the clauses go upstairs with some sort of stigma attached to them because attention has been called to them by a Motion in your Lordships' House.
In conclusion, may I say that I hope that the carrying out of this Motion will not imply that the Select Committee will not give special consideration to all clauses, and that it is necessary to pass this Motion because otherwise the clauses concerned might escape their attention? I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, from some experience of councils, local councils, regional hospital boards and hospital management committees, that the type of printing referred to is not normal commercial printing at all, but printing
982
of reports and similar documents which are best dealt with internally.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think that if any noble Lard, wherever he sits in this House, wishes any clause of a Private Bill to be carefully examined by the Committee to which it is referred, that wish ought to be acceded to as a matter of course. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burden, because a Select Committee, has not much scope for examining unopposed clauses in a Private Bill unless attention is directed to them by the House. I also think that, whilst it should go through as a matter of course, one ought not to have any debate in this House which may seem to influence the Committee in any way.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, having sat as a member of Committees for a number of years in your Lordships' House, I may say that it is no new precedent for a Committee to receive a message from the House to give special attention to certain clauses, which naturally we have done. There is nothing unusual in that when a Bill is going through Second Reading. I hope therefore that this Motion will be agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I understand that what we are doing here is to ask the Committee upstairs to pay special attention to particular clauses. Of course, the Committee will pay attention to every clause in a Bill coming before them. All we are asking them to do is to pay special attention to four clauses which, quite properly, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has brought to our attention as being clauses that may be doing something rather extraordinary. I listened to my noble friend Lord Gage talking about the setting up of printing machines; he said that it was done as a matter of economy. Lots of things are done on grounds of economy which later are found to be most uneconomical. For instance, if you set up a printing machine it is likely that you will get more things printed and circulated to members of local authority bodies, who already probably get, as your Lordships do, quite enough to read. Once you have set up a printing press it is likely that more things, and not fewer, will be circulated, and in the end it will probably cost more. All we are doing is to ask the Committee—not

983
giving them a direction, of course—to pay special attention to these matters. In my submission to your Lordships, it is a very proper thing for us to do, and I hope we shall carry this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD REITH: My Lords, I wish to make a general comment on this Bill, based on communications I have received from many people in the University of St. Andrews. I do not think the Bill, as now drafted, will bring either unity or peace to the University of St. Andrews. I believe, on the contrary, that there will be more dissension and more ill-feeling between the north and the south banks of the Tay than before. That is the general remark. Now one particular which arises on Clause 1 and on which, I am informed, I must comment now, since the first Amendment relates to Clause 3. I propose to support the noble Earl in his Amendment to Clause 3, so I will not talk about that now.
Clause 1 refers to the ancient Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and the College of St. Mary's becoming "unincorporated societies of teachers and students," forsooth. And Clause 6 says that these ancient and honourable colleges shall cease to be bodies corporate and their governing bodies shall be dissolved. I think that is not only necessary but quite deplorable. I understand that the reason that prompts it is parity of treatment between the two sides of the Tay, but, as the Chairman of the Royal Commission remarked, the situation that had to be dealt with on the north bank was extraordinary, if not monstrous. To give parity of treatment as the reason for similar action to be taken with these
984
ancient colleges I regard as irrelevant and quite unworthy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [University Court, 52 & 53 Vict. c. 55]:
(2) The Principal of the University shall preside at meetings of the University Court, and, in the absence of the Principal, a chairman for the time being shall be elected by the meeting.
The person presiding at any meeting of the University Court shall have a deliberative vote and also a casting vote in the case of equality.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE had given notice of Amendments to subsection (2) the first being at the beginning of the subsection to insert:
"Her Majesty may, if it appears to Her desirable for the reorganisation of the University, after the expiry of three years from the passing of this Act by Order in Council provide that."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment to provide for the retention by the Rector of the Chairmanship of the University Court. At the end of the debate, I think mainly owing to a proposal submitted by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I drew from the Minister of State rather a reluctant agreement that the matter should be further considered. Accordingly, I have drafted two Amendments. They are alternative, but I think that it will be for the convenience of the House, and for the Minister in his reply, if I deal with them together. The second Amendment is a repetition of my Amendment on the Committee stage, and the first is a compromise suggested by the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to which I have referred.
May I, in the first instance, recapitulate the argument for the main Amendment, which is to retain the Rector in his present position ex officio as Chairman of the Court? The Bill lays down that this responsibility is to be transferred to the Principal of the University. By so doing it cuts right across a tradition and a deliberate decision of Parliament given in 1858, under which the four Scottish universities have operated for nearly 100 years—namely, the rule that the Rector should be elected by the vote of the matriculated students and, by virtue of that office, should preside

985
over the University Court. We are told that the reversal of this decision by the present Bill is based upon the Report of the Royal Commission. May I venture to suggest that the paragraph from that Report quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, at the Committee stage is a very inept and inaccurate description of the duties undertaken by the present Rector of St. Andrews—a kind of students' assessor on the Court, if he so desires? I have personal knowledge that the present Rector does not look upon his duties in that light. I believe that, in spite of the various duties which fall to him in other directions, he gives a very large proportion of his time to attending to the duties of St. Andrews University Court, and he is constantly there. If, therefore, the judgment of the Government is based upon this suggestion in the Report, I suggest that it is a complete travesty of the fact.
As against this, the students have declared themselves strongly in favour of retaining the Rector as the Chairman, and the Grand Council of the University have also endorsed this view. The Grand Council is a body which, at St Andrews, numbers over 7,000 and I think, therefore, that its decision should be carefully considered. The Grand Council further states that it is alarmed by the change in the composition of the Court. The present composition allows for the following representation: Of the Senatus, five, together with the Principal; of the Grand Council, four; and of the others, five, making the total of fifteen for the composition of the Court. Under the Bill the Senatus will have eight representatives, plus the Principal, who also has a casting vote.
It will be seen that the Senatus representation in the Court equals the representation of all the other bodies, and the casting vote lies with the Principal, who is a member of the Senatus. I do most strongly urge that this is a further reason for retaining the Chairmanship in the hands of the Rector. As I said in Committee, the procedure under the Bill means the substitution of dictatorship for democracy, which I submit is regrettable. The students value their privilege and responsibility and, as has been testified by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, in the debate, and also by the
986
Minister of State himself, the students of St. Andrews have never abused their privilege. If we are legislating from fear of what they might do in the future, I suggest that it is a bad foundation for legislation. It is surely asking for trouble to bring in a Bill dismissing the Rector when it is admitted on all hands that the students' choice on this occasion has been one that is almost perfect.
It is plain that at this critical period of reorganisation, it is essential that the Principal should be absolutely supreme, and that his hands should not be tied, his powers "cabin'd, cribbed and confined," as they would be if he had not the Chairmanship of the University Court, but had to go cap in hand to the Rector. Is this the position? Personally—and I feel many noble Lords will join with me in this—I find it difficult to accept such an assumption, and I would rather believe that the Principal's position would be greatly enhanced and strengthened by knowing that he had at his side the assistance of a broadminded and experienced Chairman. I can envisage that sometimes there may be difficulties. There again, the members of the University Court and Committee might require very skilful and patient handling to provide for a safe and happy landing. The presence in the Chair of such a man as the present Rector would be invaluable. Is this not the position which we see every day in the conduct of industry, where we have chairmen and managing directors? Here we shall have a man responsible for the University playing his part, and at his side the wise guidance of an experienced Chairman.
This brings me to my compromise Amendment. It is based on letting well alone. It has been acknowledged by many speakers in this House, it is recognised by the University Court, by the Grand Council, by the students themselves and, generally speaking, by everyone connected with the University, that in the person of the present Rector we have a man well fitted for the job and one who is trusted by all. Why at this critical moment deprive the University of his services? If noble Lords will look at my Amendment, they will see that it provides that this change of Chairmanship shall not take place until after the expiry of three years. After that period it will be possible by Order in Council

987
to bring into force the procedure contained in subsection (2)—namely, that the Principal shall become the Chairman, but it is possible that during the intervening period, under able Chairmanship, some, at least, of the present and anticipated difficulties may be solved. The students, in any case, will realise that the wisdom of their choice has been recognised, and they will be put on their mettle to find an equally good candidate for the next election under the possible penalty of losing their right if they abuse it. My Lords, that is the position as I see it, and for that reason I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at beginning insert—
("Her Majesty may, if it appears to Her desirable for the reorganisation of the University, after the expiry of three years from the passing of this Act by Order in Council provide that").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
3.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, I rise again to support my noble friend in the Amendment he has just moved, though it may seem a very personal and, therefore, somewhat invidious Amendment for me to discuss. I think that the Amendment removes—I am talking of the non-compromise Amendment—something irrelevant to the Bill, something which is quite unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable. As your Lordships know, the present position is that the students of all the Scottish universities have imposed upon them by Parliament the right to elect for three years a Rector whose duty it is—or may be, if he so desires—to preside over the University Court. That has become a tradition much valued by students and one which is, I believe, of great value to the Universities as a whole. Yet at St. Andrews this privilege is by this Bill withdrawn. Why? I find it very difficult to answer that question, and certainly I do not think that adequate reasons have yet been given to your Lordships.
I had thought that, as was suggested by my noble friend who has moved the Amendment, the main reason was fear. But the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, who wrote the Report on which
988
this Bill is based, has emphatically denied that suggestion. So we must rule out fear of what the students might do—but, in point of fact, have never done We must rule out that reason for this provision. We are told that one of the reasons is that at St. Andrews there are special circumstances which make this provision necessary. There are, indeed, special circumstances at St. Andrews, and there have been great difficulties in the past which have caused these special circumstances. But the position of the Rector in the Chair is not among them; nor have the students done anything which has created difficulties or caused these special circumstances. The argument of special circumstances is, I think, completely irrelevant to the question of whether the Rector should continue or discontinue to hold the Chair.
We are told that stable government and continuity of policy at the University may be endangered if the Rector, who is elected triennially, remains in the Chair instead of the new Principal. I do not believe for one moment that that is so. We can find examples to the contrary from our own lives. Take an example closer to this, Oxford, where the Vice Chancellor is changed. I think, every three years. He is changed every three years, presumably, lest he should become too powerful, lest his position should give him more authority than is proper. Very wisely, the Vice Chancellor, like the Rector of St. Andrews, is changed every three years. That change does not in any way injure stable government; it creates it. About Cambridge I know less, but I very much doubt whether the new Chancellor of Cambridge University could tell me what the policy of the University is. In any case, it seems to me that this argument is one which will not hold water for one moment. If there is to be so drastic a change at the University of St. Andrews, if this tradition is to be abolished, if the opinion of the students is thus to be offended and their privileges and rights, given to them by Parliament, destroyed, I think we must have very much sounder and closer reasoning than we have been given so far. We have been told very emphatically that the change must take place, that it is in the interests of the University that it should. But we still wait to hear the reasons why.

989
Of these two Amendments, I very much prefer the direct one, by which the Rector would be retained in the Chair, rather than the compromise Amendment which provides for waiting for three years. The latter is a very ingenious and very clever Amendment, which has been well argued by my noble friend, but I feel that, if there is to be a change, the change had better take place as soon as possible. As I say. I prefer the Amendment which deals with the principle that there should be no change whatever. On the other hand, if the noble Earl, Lord Home, is friendly to the compromise Amendment, I need hardly say that I, too, will be friendly to it.
The Rector to-day presides over the University Court and I, in all modesty, must agree with the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, in saying that this is no mere nominal duty. In fact, I have never been so hard worked in my life as I have been during the three months since I became Rector; and the description which Lord Elgin quoted on the Committee stage, from the speech of a noble Lord sitting on the Benches Opposite, is, I agree, a complete and, indeed, a monstrous travesty of the position of the Rector. Presiding over the University Court is, of course, only one of the duties that a Rector undertakes. He presides over the University Court, but not over the Senate. The University Court deals with matters of administration: it is the supreme Court of the University. The Senate, over which the Rector does not preside, deals with academic matters, teaching and discipline. But the Court is also the court of appeal from the Senate. To-day, a different man presides over each of those two bodies. Unless this Amendment is carried, the same man, the new Principal, will preside over both those bodies. That, I should have thought, was a travesty of the normal traditions of justice. That, I should have thought, was in the nature of what is described in that poem in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in the words:
"I'll be judge, I'll be jury,
Said cunning old Fury."
The same man might well have to review his own decisions, and under the clause he is provided with a casting vote in case there should be any doubt on the ground that his own position might be in danger. I think that places the new, unappointed,
990
unknown Principal in an almost intolerable position, and one in which no man would wish to find himself. The new man will be a paid professional. The Rector is an unpaid layman.
My noble friend mentioned the managing director as being beside the Chairman. The position is, perhaps, rather that under this provision the lay chairman is removed and the managing director put in his place. Of that sort of situation we have all had experience, and we have all realised that it was not a good practice. What is more, the Rector is elected; the new Principal will be appointed—and appointed by the Government. He will become part of the Government team in what I think will be the most closely State-controlled University in the country.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I ask the noble Earl's pardon for intervening, but the Principal of the United Colleges, who is also Principal of the University, is to-day appointed by the Crown.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: He happens to be both to-day, but that would not necessarily be so. The position, if I am right in amending what my noble friend says, is that the new Principal will be over the heads of the two Colleges, and will, therefore, be a new officer superimposed on the two heads of Colleges. He is a completely new officer, appointed, as was the head of the College, by the Government. That is exactly how it stands. But if the head of the College, who was previously the Principal, is a Government appointee, this new Principal, also appointed by the Government, is part of a very large and very formidable team of people who are also appointed either by the Government or by those who are appointed by them.
As I counted, there are to be no fewer than twenty-two people in this category—twenty-two new people who are to be appointed either by the Government or by those whom the Government have appointed. They can form a couple of football teams and go down to the University football ground on a Saturday afternoon and play each other. But who is to be the referee? To-day it is the Rector impartial, and no one can question his impartiality, which is inherent in his position. But that, of course, would never do: the impartial, unpaid Rector might be too independent. When St. Andrews House whistles, he may not

991
come to heel. Instead, in his place, the twenty-third Government appointment, the Principal himself, is to be the referee. Of course, I do not say that the new Principal will not be an impartial man. The greatest care will be taken in selecting him, and no doubt he will be as impartial as the Rector; but with these great powers which he is given, and with the almost dictatorial possibilities inherent under the Bill, will it not be very difficult for him to be impartial, and might it not be almost impossible for him to give what is almost as important, the appearance of impartiality? I cannot help feeling that it will be better to have a Rector who is not a Government official, who is not paid and who is not appointed, particularly at a time when there is this very real danger of increasing Government control over the University.
The office of Rector is a high one, indeed. Past members of your Lordships' House—Lord Balfour, Lord Haldane, Lord Dufferin and many others, world figures like Field Marshal Smuts and Nansen, figures from the Victorian past like Dean Stanley, J. A.. Froude, and John Stuart Mill, have all looked upon their election as Rector by the students of St. Andrews as not the least of the honours that have fallen to their lot. If what they have written is true, it is an honour of which they have felt proud, as they have felt proud of the service they have been able to give to the students of the University. If this high tradition of honour is to be debased, is it not possible that students may be less scrupulous than in the past about whom they elect to this honour? Is it not also possible that the men they might desire to have as Rectors would be more reluctant to serve when the area of service at their disposal is reduced? Before we close the door on yet another area of public service, and open it to yet another area of Government control, before we inflict a blow on the opinions and rights of the students, before we remove privileges which Parliament has granted, I cannot help feeling that we ought to hear from my noble friend Lord Home very formidable and very cogent reasons.
3.25 p.m.
LORD TEDDER: My Lords, I find this discussion slightly embarrassing, because we are dazzled by the eloquence and brilliance of the man whom the students
992
in their wisdom have chosen to be their Rector. But, with all respect, I feel that that is irrelevant to the issue. It has been suggested that this Bill should be modified to meet the fact that the students have once again chosen an eminent, brilliant man as their Rector. Again with all respect, I suggest that to legislate on the basis of the accident that a particular individual has been elected is about as unsound a proceeding as one could possibly conceive. The students have made good choices in the past; and we can be certain that the present Rector is in every way suitable to be chosen for this difficult position. But fate is not always reliable—accidents do happen. suppose that one of these foggy days a motorist does not see the zebra stripes and, long before the three years are out, this remarkable Rector and Chairman has to be replaced. Is he to be replaced for the unexpired portion of the three years, or do we require to have further legislation to allow for a new Rector? I do not know. It seems to me to be unsound to work on that basis.
To my mind, the question is purely a simple matter of organisation. Accepting the noble Earl's analogy, do we have the managing director as chairman of the management committee or do we not? Actually, the University Court is the management committee of the University, and there, the noble Lords say, we cannot trust the Principal to be chairman of that management committee—he might be a dictator. I am surprised at so many Scotsmen being afraid of dictatorship. I cannot imagine any Scottish organisation in which a dictator would have much chance of lasting long—although I must admit that one of the troubles in the past was a tendency towards dictatorship, which one hopes that the provisions of the Bill will remove.
Referring to what my noble friend Lord Reith said, my experience as regards the reactions to the proposals of the Bill and the Commission's Report is entirely contrary to his. I have had reports from responsible people, on both sides of the Tay and in all spheres, all on the same note—"For goodness sake, do anything you can do to help make sure that Parliament do not tinker with the recommendations! We do not like all of them, but they fit together. Leave them alone and we can work them."
3.29 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND: My Lords, I rise with diffidence to make a brief contribution to this discussion. I venture to make five points with regard to the Amendments. Several noble Lords made the point on Committee stage, and again to-day, that it has long been a tradition in the Scottish universities that the Rector shall preside over the University Court. I have made inquiries, and I find that although, under the Acts of 1858 and 1889, the Rector is entitled to preside, in general in Scotland he rarely does so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: That does not apply to St. Andrews.
LORD BILSLAND: In most cases it is impossible that he should. The Bill changes the Statute in this respect as regards St. Andrews, but not the general practice. That is my first point. My second point derives from my experience some years ago in serving for a term as Assessor to the Rector on the Glasgow University Court. The view I formed was that the infrequency of contact with the University—contact consisting mainly of attendance at a monthly meeting of the Court—made it difficult for anyone placed as I was then to preside effectively at a meeting of the Court. I have had some experience as chairman of industrial companies and various representative bodies, but I never felt less sure of myself than when I was asked, in the absence of the Principal, to preside at a meeting of Glasgow University Court. I conceive it to be the duty of a chairman not only to perform the routine functions of that office, but to have a complete grasp of the business to be discussed and a clear idea in advance of the decisions that should, in his view, be taken. I submit that he can be in that position only if he is in fairly close contact with the work of the organisation over which he is presiding; a contact which enables him also to form his own assessment of the various contributions made round the table. I appreciate that St. Andrews is indeed fortunate to-day in its present Rector but, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has just said, we are not considering that to-day.
Further, I submit that continuity is most desirable in the conduct of the affairs of the University. That is my third
994
point. My fourth point is that the heads of the colleges will sit on the University Court by virtue of their offices. I submit that it would put the Principal in a difficult and unfortunate position in relation to them if he were not chairman of the Court. Finally, I submit, with great respect, that the Royal Commission, after a prolonged study, submitted a solution to a long-standing problem. I believe it to he the case that the senior governing bodies of the University, which contain representatives of St. Andrews Colleges and University College, Dundee, are strongly in favour of accepting the recommendations of the Commission. Therefore, I hope that those recommendations will be accepted.
3.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, we have just listened to two speeches which have neatly cancelled each other out. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has on this occasion undertaken a most unfortunate flight: his navigation has been defective, and his bomb dropping inaccurate. He appears to take the view that, although in the long history of St. Andrews University there have been no instances of unworthy Rectors being appointed, for some unexplained and unexplainable reason, that might not be the case in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, has been at pains to point out that usually in the Scottish Universities the Rector does not preside at all. So that, even if Lord Tedder's forebodings were justified, it would appear that this imaginary unworthy Rector of the future would be unlikely to take his place in the Chair at the University Court and so be a nuisance to the Principal and other members.
Having listened throughout a large portion of the earlier stages of the Bill, and having read the proceedings carefully, I am still entirely at a loss to see any justification for this proposal, which is in direct contradiction to the traditions of all the Scottish universities and which, I may say, is causing considerable anxiety to all the other—I understand there are representatives from several of them here to-day. Unless the noble Earl, Lord Home, is able to produce something much more cogent than anything that has yet been urged, I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and,

995
at least, in part, delete something which I believe not to be in the interests of the Scottish universities as a whole. There is one further point I should like to make in regard to St. Andrews itself. As the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has said, the Rectors of St. Andrews University have been, almost without exception, men of high standing and eminence in our national life. Why, then, in this particular Bill, which affects only St. Andrews University, are we to have this assumption that the students are likely in the near, or indeed the distant, future to depart from the good sense they have shown in the past? Until such time as some evidence of this is forthcoming, I, at least, am opposed to this proposal.
3.36 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the First Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elgin. We have been told of many difficulties that will arise if the Principal is not appointed Chairman. The difficulties are certainly obvious, and they were referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, on Second Reading and on the Committee stage. What is required to solve them is mainly common sense. They are not so much educational difficulties, as old quarrels, financial difficulties, and such like. I cannot believe that it can be other than helpful that the Principal should have the Chairman to assist him, as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, so strongly emphasised. If there are quarrels, or unpopular things to be done, what a help it must be to the Principal to be able to put the troubles on to the shoulders of the Rector, and to say that he is sorry, but that the Court will not allow it! If he has to face the difficulties and unpopularity alone, he will be in a much less enviable position.
The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will forgive me if I am personal, because it is difficult not to be in such circumstances as these. I feel that the students have, in the dispensation of providence, appointed their present Rector, and I cannot think that it would be a wise thing for us to fly in the face of this. On the question of the new constitution, one of the difficulties which it is suggested the Principal will have to face, no Chairman of the
996
Court is going to interfere with the Principal. One cannot imagine that any Chairman would be a hindrance to him, but rather, as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has said, he would be a help. It is common practice in Scotland in every business to have not an expert but an independent man in the chair. The point has been made about giving more control to the Government. I could not quite follow the reasoning of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, when he said he hoped that this Bill and the putting of the Principal in the Chair would meet the danger of dictatorship. As has been said, the Principal appointed by the Government is going to be Chairman of the Court, as well as of the Senatus. That cannot but tend to add to the danger of dictatorship. We are told that it will not happen in practice, but when one is making and bringing in a new measure, it seems to me that we are moving in the direction of more dictatorship.
My noble friend Lord Crawford said that he preferred the second of Lord Elgin's Amendments. I find it difficult to agree with him there, for this reason. One of the main difficulties of the Government is that they fear that if the Rector is in the Chair, if the new Principal cannot be offered the Chairmanship they will not be able to get the best man. I imagine that when you are appointing a new Principal you will appoint a man of great vision, with very high ideals and a man of great ability. Can one conceive that such a man, when asked to undertake this most important position in a university, would decline that post and say: "If the Rector is going to be in the Chair of the Court my authority will be undermineds"? As other noble Lords have said, it is difficult to understand the real objections to this Bill, and I cannot think it will mean losing the best man, because my noble friend Lord Crawford is in the Chair. I prefer the first Amendment, because it gives the Government the opportunity, at the end of three years, of making a change. It will then be possible to say to the new Principal, "If there are difficulties in the future, you have the opportunity of making your complaints, and you can put it to the Government that there should be a change." I think Lord Elgin's first Amendment does give the Government that opportunity. If it were carried, the Government could get

997
the best both of the Bill and of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, with the great advantage of leaving the present Rector in office for at least his present term.
3.44 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if one from South of the Border may ask a question and intervene in a Scottish matter, I was wondering how the situation in St. Andrews compares with that at Oxford and Cambridge. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has unfortunately gone at the very moment when I would have hoped he would be here, because I understand that at both Oxford and Cambridge the Chancellor is appointed. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, is Chancellor of Oxford University, and the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, Chancellor of Cambridge University. I understand that they are the senior officers, although they do not normally preside over any university body. They can preside, and they remain the senior person, the day-to-day work being clone by the Vice-Chancellor, who is normally head of a College and who is appointed Vice-Chancellor for a term of four or five years, or whatever it may be. It seems to me that if we put the Rector here in the second place, it would be tantamount to putting the Chancellor at Oxford or Cambridge under the Vice-Chancellor.
THE EARL OF HOME: There are a Chancellor and a Vice-Chancellor of St. Andrews University.
LORD LLEWELLIN: There are?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: There are a Chancellor and a Vice-Chancellor?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes; and a Rector and a Principal.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was not aware of that. Then, of course, the Rector is not the senior person in the University; the senior is the Chancellor, with the Vice-Chancellor second. That really answers my point. Otherwise, of course, if the Chancellor is placed under the Vice-Chancellor, as I was about to say, the best people will not stand as Chancellor, to act under the Principal. If St. Andrews has a Chancellor, a Vice-Chancellor and a Rector, my point does not really arise.
LORD REITH: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, cares to study the constitution of the universities of France he will find there an analogy which he will not find in the English ones. I support the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and I will support him whatever he decides to do, whichever Amendment he presses, and whether he presses it to a Division or not. I hope that the noble Earl who replies for the Government will take cognisance of the very strong feeling that exists. I content myself by saying that I think the proposal to put the Rector—the most distinguished present Rector or any Rector—out of the Chair is silly, sickening and subversive.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, I intervene only because I think I am one of those young enough to have a number of friends among the students of St. Andrews University and other universities. Your Lordships might first be interested to hear this comment of Dr. Johnson on his visit to St. Andrews, when he said:
"The chief magistrate resident in the University—answering to our Vice-Chancellor—and to the rector magnificus on the Continent, had commonly the title of Lord Rector—but being addressed only as Mr. Rector in an in-auguratory speech by the present Chancellor, he has fallen from his former dignity of style."
There is apparently to be a yet further decline. I have had some acquaintance with negotiations in India with rather intractable personalities, and I therefore do not quite accept the argument of the necessity for continuity. It seems to me that if certain deadlock has been reached over a field of matters under discussion, when a new Chairman comes along there is always the opportunity of a fresh approach and a reopening of those questions.
It seems to me that the whole value in life at a university is that there should be at all times a certain drama about the personalities there. If in other universities, where life is proceeding very placidly and smoothly, students elect as their representatives somewhat colourful personalities, to heighten the tempo of life there, I do not think we ought to keep in the back of our minds that the students of St. Andrews will necessarily do the same. They will, in their elections, take into account the very delicate situation here and realise the importance of choosing, as they have done in their

999
recent elections, someone who is living near St. Andrews and who can devote his time to the affairs of the University. I think we should bear in mind that some of the students who will be taking part in the next election for Rector are now doing their National Service. Some of them are commanding platoons in battle in Korea and Malaya. If your Lordships reject all these Amendments this afternoon, I am afraid it will go out to or be interpreted by many of the young people all over the country that Parliament cannot trust young people to exercise responsibility.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is probably unwise for an Englishman to intervene in this debate—
LORD LLEWELLIN: As I have found out. The noble Lord is quite right.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, did not come off very successfully; no doubt, I shall come off equally unsuccessfully. The noble Lord raised a point which I think is of some importance, as to how this matter of the Court and the Senate is governed in most of the English universities. I do not say that Oxford and Cambridge are perhaps the best examples in that regard, and the pattern of the newer universities in England is quite different. It would be completely contrary to the whole spirit of the arrangements in the modern English universities to have the Chairman of the Court and the Vice-Chancellor or the Principal the same person. I think all the modern English universities, sometimes called the "red brick" universities, get some distinguished man from outside to be Chairman of the Court, because there may be a clash of opinion between the Senate and the Court. It is very important in those circumstances that the Chairman of the one institution should not be the Chairman of the other.
In the University of London, with which I have worked for many years, we have had the advantage of having two distinguished lawyers as Chairmen of the Court. One was the late Lord Macmillan, who was a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. He was for many years a most successful Chairman of the Court at the University of London, and his work was very much admired. From an Englishman's point
1000
of view, for the Principal or the Vice-Chancellor of the University to be appointed by the Crown is quite contrary to the tradition of autonomy upon which every English university prides itself. I am surprised to find that in Scotland a rather more totalitarian conception of a university appears to prevail. Even in Germany it never got to the position where the appointment of the Rector, who in Germany is the head administrative officer of the university, was an out-and-out appointment by the State; the university itself had some say in his appointment. But I find Clause 2 of this Bill says:
The Principal of the University shall be appointed by Her Majesty.
However, it is probably too late to debate that particular point.
Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the time of the Second Reading, but it seems to me that in one way or another the position of Chairman of the Court ought to be separated from the position of Principal. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, in whom I am sure for once the undergraduates made an excellent choice, it seems to me, as a teacher in an English university, that to leave the appointment of an important officer such as the Rector to the choice of the students is a rather nonsensical plan. Although they may, from time to time, succeed in choosing a competent and distinguished man to hold that office, in quite a number of cases the choice is ludicrous. It does not seem to me a sensible method, by and large, of selecting the head of the Court. However, perhaps that is neither here nor there. Probably it is just as well that an Englishman should at this stage retire from the discussion
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have often wished before, but never so keenly as this afternoon, that your Lordships' House was provided with fences and not with Benches, because there is no question in regard to which I would more gladly sit upon the fence than this. I think it is a serious and undeserved wrong to the students of St. Andrews that their Rector should lose the privilege and duty of presiding over the University Court. But, though that is my own opinion, I have taken a good deal of pains to ascertain as well as I could the opinion of the Royal Commission that

1001
sat on this matter and had the circumstances closely and carefully brought before them. I think I am correct in saying that, notwithstanding the very important change of circumstances to-day from the circumstances which existed when they made this recommendation, they still adhere, and adhere firmly, to the recommendation they have made to Parliament in their Report. I gather that it is largely for the reasons which were so ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. It is a great honour to St. Andrews and to the students of St. Andrews that they have exercised their privilege of electing a Rector so worthily, so wisely and so ably in the years of the past, and I am confident—I am almost completely certain—that they would always do so in the future. I do not share the nervousness, which was perhaps more apparent than real, of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder. I am quite certain that they would.
But the situation in which we are today has been brought about not through any fault of the students, but through the sins and errors, I believe, of their superiors and leaders in the past. It is not the first time in history that the sheep have suffered for the sins of the shepherds. This is a sacrifice which they are called upon to bear through the faults of others and not by their own. It is a case of delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi. In my lifetime, and over many years, I have found that the errors committed by our leaders are always expiated by the innocent, and I think this is a case in point. I realise what the Royal Commission wished for when they made this recommendation; I realise what the Government have in mind, and I honestly think that to pass the Bill as it stands gives the best chance of peace in the future, much as I regret the step which I am going lo support if necessary.
3.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am not in the least surprised, nor do I in the least complain, that at this stage of the Bill we should be taking up a good deal of time talking about the status and the position of the Rector. I anticipated that that would be so from the very start of the Bill. We are all reluctant to break with tradition. There has been a strong tradition in Scotland, in all the
1002
universities, and in particular in St. Andrews, where the students have always chosen their Rector. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has just reminded us—and I think I must remind your Lordships, too—of the background against which this Bill is proposed. It is one of fifty years of continuing dissension and bitter controversy. That controversy, we hope, lies behind us. Ahead of us, if the Royal Commission's proposals are accepted, there is a period of rather complicated constitutional reform. Our objective, therefore, must be to do the best we can to provide the University with the best possible administrative machinery to achieve peace in the future. The first question that has been posed to me this afternoon by Lord Elgin's Amendments is this: Should the Rector or the Principal preside over the Court? That is a straight issue. Then there is a compromise Amendment, which is really plainly put in these words: Should the decision be postponed for three years?
My Lords, this Bill is based on the findings of a Royal Commission which was unanimous. The general proposals of the Royal Commission have been widely accepted in Scotland and by most of the responsible St. Andrews University opinion. The Royal Commission propose that the Principal of the University should no longer be attached to any college, that he should no longer be the Principal of the United College in St. Andrews, and should not be the Principal of the new College to be created in Dundee. They propose that he should be a person over and above the two College Councils—a man of high distinction, and impartial, who would preside over the whole of the teaching, discipline and administration of the University. That was one of the central recommendations of the Royal Commission.
My noble friend Lord Crawford says that in a paragraph of their Report the Royal Commission gave an account which was a travesty of the Lord Rector's duties. And Lord Crawford asks: Do the Government rest on that statement their case for making the Principal the Chairman of the Court? The answer is, No. The Government rest their case for including this provision in the Bill on that part of the Royal Commission's Report which stresses that it is absolutely essential that

1003
there should be continuity of administration in the early years, and for as long as possible, under the constitutional reorganisation. My noble friend Lord Tedder, Lord Greenhill and other members of the Royal Commission, have been able to hear all the arguments that have been used in your Lordships' House at earlier stages of the Bill. They are still firmly convinced that the right proposal is to put the Principal into the Chair of the University Court from the start; and the Government are convinced that that is the right view.
There is perhaps one aspect of this matter to which noble Lords who have been associating themselves with this Amendment might perhaps be willing to give a little more attention. The reorganisation which the Royal Commission propose is as follows. There should be two Councils—one for the new College at Dundee, and one for the Colleges at St. Andrews, and on those Councils there will be the heads of the Colleges. The Principal of the University will be a member of each of those Councils. He will therefore have at his finger tips all the administrative problems; he will be able to judge the interplay of personalities on each of the Councils. The Rector is not a member of either of those Councils. If my noble friend Lord Elgin has his way, what will happen at the level of the Court, the highest level of administration? There will be the Principal of the University a member of the Court as a member of the Senate, but with no administrative function or authority whatever.
LORD CHORLEY: Is the noble Earl not aware that that is what happens in London at the present time, where the chairman does his work in a way that is satisfactory to everybody?
THE EARL OF HOME: I will come to the English universities in a moment, if I may. But let me make this point, that we are comparing the position of the Rector, who does not exist in England, with that of the Principal, and deciding who is the better qualified to occupy the position of Chairman of the Court. I am dealing with the case of the Principal, who has been on the Councils, is aware of all the administrative problems that have been discussed in the Councils, and is able to judge the interplay of personalities. When these problems come up to
1004
the Court, he will have no administrative authority, and will therefore really be in an inferior position administratively to the two heads of the Colleges. I doubt whether that is a tolerable position in which to put this new Principal from the start. Any administrative reform or proposal which he wanted to introduce he would be bound always to put through the mouth of the Rector. I rather doubt whether even the noble Lord, Lord Reith, would find himself comfortable in such double harness. I think the Royal Commission were right when they suggested that the University would be best served if the Principal was put in the Chair and was able from the start, continuously, to exercise his influence. Therefore, for these reasons (and I must add to them the uncertainty of the Principal's position, because a new Rector is elected every three years), and with this history behind us and the reorganisation which is to take place in front of us, I think it would be better to put the Principal in the Chair of the Court from the start. That is why the Government propose to do so by this Bill.
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, introduced a slightly new factor, although it was touched on by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, the other day. He said, in effect, that on the Court the Senate will number nine persons; that the other representatives will number nine persons; that there will be equality and that the Principal will have a casting vote. That point was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Llewellyn. There is nothing very strange in that. Lord Simon argued that it was a strange position, the Principal being a member of the Senate, that he should then have a casting vote in the Court and be able to confirm the vote which he had given as a member of the Senate. That sort of situation is not very uncommon. Lord Simon had overlooked the example of his own university and mine, where the Vice Chancellor at Oxford is either chairman or a member of all University committees and also Chairman of the University Council. There is a parallel for this, and I do not really think that that argument holds very much weight; nor do I think that if we got the kind of man everybody wants to see in this position, he would exercise dictatorial powers. Obviously, the right kind of man will use

1005
his casting vote only in the most exceptional circumstances. The noble Earl himself knows perfectly well that if the Chairman has a casting vote there are all sorts of ways and means whereby he can avoid using it, except in the last extremity. Therefore, my Lords, I feel that in this Bill we must stand firm on the proposal which was brought forward, that the Principal should take the position of Chairman of the Court.
I now come to the compromise proposal. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, admits that it is a compromise to take advantage of a favourable situation. We all agree that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is a most excellent Rector. But surely we cannot legislate for personalities. Surely, that is a proposition which nobody could possibly sustain. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and the noble Lords, Lord Reith and Lord Kinnaird, argued as though Lord Crawford would not be there; but of course he will be there. He will be on the Court; he will be Rector—a very influential member of the Court. And, of course, being the kind of man he is, he will put his full knowledge, advice and influence at the disposal of the new Principal. Lord Elgin says, "Well, wait for three years and then allow the Secretary of State to decide whether the new Rector is a fit and proper person to go on holding the Chair." I confess that I do not know how that is to be decided. Is he to be invited for a week-end, to see whether he is intellectually and socially a responsible and proper person? For my own part I should not like the duty of making such a decision. The object of this Bill is to close controversy and dissention, but I cannot imagine anything more likely to keep it open than to wait for three years and then to decide whether the person in question is fit or unfit.
I cannot find very much virtue in this compromise, and I find still less virtue when I recall that in the first two or three years of this reorganisation the relationship between the College Council, the Senate and the Court, will be in process of being fixed. It would seem to me most important of all that during this period the Chairman of the Court should be able to take the initiative and, together with the Commissioners, guide the direction which the constitution is to take in
1006
the future. Therefore, my Lords, I find that the arguments, although they have been sincerely made, and although the views which they express are sincerely held, are not acceptable. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, will feel that as the case has been ventilated on both sides it will not be necessary to divide the House at this stage of the Bill. We have sufficiently fulfilled our functions. The question of pressing the Amendment is, of course, for him to decide, but I have given these matters the most genuine consideration at every stage.
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, having listened to the debate in your Lordships' House I should like to thank the Minister of State for his answer. With some of the things he has said I thoroughly agree, notably that the first few years are critical. For that reason it is imperative that we should decide in this House what we feel about it. My compromise Amendment was designed to get over some of the very difficulties which have been mentioned, but in view of what has been said about the compromise Amendment and what your Lordships have said on the whole subject, I feel that the best policy for me to adopt is to withdraw the first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, in moving the second Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper I do not intend to make another speech, but I should like to read a few remarks given to me by a very distinguished member of the St. Andrews University, who might be called the Grand Old Man of St. Andrews, with regard to the Rector's position. He says:
"I believe that the Marquis of Bute, who was elected in 1892, and re-elected in 1895, attended the meetings of the Court and took the chair. James Stuart of Milton of Balgonie, who was Professor of Engineering in the University of Cambridge and afterwards became a Director of Colmans, Ltd., was elected Rector in 1898. He attended the Court Meetings regularly: they were held on Saturdays to suit his convenience. He, I have been told, did a great deal to help the then Principal to put the whole administration of the University upon a sound basis.
"The Rectors elected since then—Andrew Carnegie, Lord Avebury, the Earl of Rosebery, the Marquis of Aberdeen, Douglas Haig, Barrie, Kipling, Nansen, Grenfell, Smuts and

1007
Marconi (who died shortly before the date arranged for his installation)—never, so far as I know, attended a Meeting of the Court.
"Before the election of Robert Macgregor Mitchell in 1937, the students in all the Scottish Universities came to feel that the Rector should be, in their interests, an active member of the Court, and each candidate was asked to undertake that he would attend the meetings of the Court. Macgregor Mitchell died during his term of office, and in 1938 Sir David Munro was elected Rector and continued to he automatically re-elected during the War till, in 1946, Sir George Cunningham was elected. He was followed by Lord Burghley in 1949, and Lord Crawford was elected in the autumn of 1952.…
"Sir George Cunningham was successful in every way; and Burghley proved himself to be a very able chairman and always made for harmony throughout a period of many difficulties. Lord Crawford has taken the chair at every meeting since his election, and all I can say is that it is difficult to imagine that anyone could fill the position more ably and with a greater appeal to every member of the Court."
In view of what has been said in this debate—and I make particular reference to the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, whose remarks were specially notable coming
Clause 5:
Functions of College Councils
5.—(1) The University Court shall delegate to the College Councls, subject to (a) any
1008
from a young man—I appeal to your Lordships to retain the Rector in his traditional place.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, after the first ("The") insert ("Rector, whom failing, the").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, there are a few words which I desire to add to the argument. The next two or three years will be important ones in the settlement of the new constitution of the University, and no one has questioned the great suitability of Lord Crawford for this position. By removing him from the Chairmanship of the Court, you would be removing the one person of all most suited for that rôle, the one person who could most thoroughly be trusted to see the new constitution come into being. I hope that the present Amendment will be supported and accepted.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Cholmondeley, M.

St. Davids, V.

Faringdon, L.

Kinnaird, L

Mansfield, E. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Monson, L.

Wavell, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) [Teller.]

Reith, L.

Sempill, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teviot, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberdare, L.

Hayter, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Bilsland, L.

Leconfield, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Burden, L.

Merthyr, L.

Jowitt, E.

Carrington, L.

Milne, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Morrison, L

Rothes, E.

Digby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dormer, L.

Saltoun, L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Schuster, L.

Allenby, V.

Douglas, of Kirtleside, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gifford, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Falmouth, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Hankey, L.

Teynham, L.

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

directions from time to time given by the University Court, (b) any ordinances made by the Commissioners appointed under this Act and (c) such limitation as may be imposed by the University Court on the expenditure to be incurred for the purpose, the performance of the following functions, that is to say—
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES had given notice of three Amendments in subsection (1), the first of which was to omit "(a) any directions from time to time given by the University Court, (b)." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I am glad to see that although Lord Crawford has been removes from his place on the Court of the University, Lord Wigan still retains his seat in this House! The three Amendments which he moves are, in effect, one; and they are moved on behalf of the University Court who are, indeed, fortunate to have someone to represent them in your Lordships' House. The Court were satisfied with the Bill as it stands amended on this point, your Lordships were also satisfied, and Lord Tedder expressed himself as in agreement that the Bill, amended, implemented his wishes. Therefore, I feel I must apologise to your Lordships for raising this matter once again. The reason is that the heads of departments in University College, Dundee, have had some misgivings as to the words in the Bill, as it is now before the House. The Court feel that if the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is to have, as it must have, the good will of all concerned it is desirable that, if possible, there should be no disagreement, particularly on Clause 5, which deals with the relations of the Court to the College Councils. That is a crucial matter in the whole organisation which is to be set up. So meetings between the Court and the heads of departments in Dundee have taken place with a view to finding agreed words.
The words which I move have been agreed unanimously by the heads of departments in Dundee, and the University Court sponsor the Amendments in the interest of harmony. I think that this change is slight. The Amendments leave quite unimpaired the supreme authority of the Court, with powers to give directions from time to time. But the new words in Amendment 6 on the Marshalled List indicate that the exercise of these powers should be occasional and not normal. This seems to implement what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, said in Paragraph 93 of his Report:
"This power should normally be expressed as a limitation of total expenditure under stated items."
1010
I would say that in any case the Court would regard it as their duty to give only such general directions as they deemed essential, so that the words I propose merely make explicit what is already implicit in the Commission's proposals and the intended manner of their implementation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out from the first ("to") to ("any") in line 3.—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, Lord Douglas may appear in your Lordships' House, but Lord Home may not be able to appear in St. Andrews! As I have treated the noble Earl rather shabbily earlier this afternoon, I am glad to say that I accept the Amendment which he has moved and the others which follow. Perhaps I may take the opportunity, as I think it is relevant in this clause, to correct one impression which the noble Earl gave this afternoon. In fact, the Crown appointments will not be twenty-two. At the most, there will be ten, and we hope that after five years they will be reduced to one—the Principal.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, unless my arithmetic is wrong, I think that the number of appointments, plus the appointments made by those appointed, number twenty-two.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should not like to challenge the noble Earl's arithmetic, but arithmetic often conveys the wrong impression, and that is what has been done by this figure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("and (c)") and insert ("to").—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("purpose") insert ("and to such directions given from time to time by the University Court as the University Court shall deem essential").—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.34 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not think this Bill arouses any controversy, but one point in subsection (5) of Clause 1 has been brought to my attention. We have had representations about the qualifications which should be possessed by any auditor appointed under subsection (5) to audit the accounts of the Research Trust. The detailed arrangements for auditing are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and while I have no reason to imagine the appointment of any one other than a fully qualified auditor would be contemplated, I should like to give a more formal assurance that the Secretary of State will certainly use this power of approval to secure that no auditor is appointed who is not a member of one or other of the recognised bodies, as follows: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; The Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors; The Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. Sometimes these names are put in the Bill, but as this is a Bill in which accountancy plays a very small part, I think it is not necessary to make an Amendment. However, I gladly give the assurance.
LORD MILNE: I thank the noble Earl for that assurance.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
4.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill this question? The noble Earl will remember that when the original Act was passed, these endowments, or a great proportion of them, were taken over to provide amenities for hospitals. Now I understand that these funds, or a great proportion of them, are to be taken for another purpose. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the original purpose for which the endowments were taken over under the original Act will still be carried out by the Government.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it is the intention of the Government that the original purpose should be carried out and such proportion as is given for research ought not to interfere with the amenities necessary for hospitals which have voluntary endowments.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE FLOOD DISASTER
4.38 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to call attention to the recent damage to life and property by storm and flood; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name, I would ask for certain assurances. I hope the fact that I have just voted with the Government will count in my favour and that I can get some concession in return. The sympathy of your Lordships' House and of another place, and also of the whole country, has been very well expressed by the Leaders of the Parties for our own people and for the people of Holland and Belgium who suffered so terribly in the disaster which is so vivid in your Lordships' minds. There have also been worthy expressions of appreciation of the fine spirit and courage of the people affected, of the ready help given by all classes and of the fine work done by the members of the Armed Forces, the Civil Defence and other organisations. All that has

1013
been done in a worthy and dignified manner in your Lordships' House and in another place, and I shall not attempt to add to those appreciations. We have also given thanks for the substantial gifts in cash and kind from foreign Governments and nationals of other countries and from our own kith and kin in the Commonwealth.
I am going to venture to give an appreciation in my own words of all that the Government Departments concerned did immediately on the emergency. I shall come to that in a moment. This has been the greatest disaster by flood and storm. I believe, since the great floods in 1571. I am informed that that is historically correct. Whether there were comparable disasters prior to that date, between then and the Great Deluge, I do not know. It was certainly an unusual and extraordinary occurrence to have abnormally high tides and a northern tempest. The result was this terrible damage and loss of life and property. On this occasion I am not going to make any reference to the horrible devastation of the beautiful forests of Scotland, because I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and other noble Lords from Scotland are going to raise the matter particularly in a. few days' time.
I must inform your Lordships that a great many people—and I would not say that they are altogether wrong—attribute the abnormal eccentricities of the climate all over the world in recent years, of which this is one of the most terrible manifestations, to the general upset to the forces of nature by tinkering with nuclear energy. In other words, the explosion of atom bombs in America, Japan, the Pacific and Australia, and, if we can believe what we are told, in Eastern Siberia, has upset the climate of the world. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, is not in his place, because I should have liked to hear his views on that matter. I would not rule that theory out altogether. After all, rain can be created by bombing the clouds, and these atom bombs and, I think, hydrogen bombs, could have caused an upset in the delicate forces of nature for which we have had to pay with terrible winters and dreadful floods on both sides of the North Sea. I am not able to give a scientific judgment on that point, but there may be something in it. If so, it is a lesson to all of us.
I was involved in this disaster from early on. Like many of your Lordships, I suffered personal losses, and properties in which I am interested were heavily damaged. I must say that at once, because it means that I am indirectly interested, as are others of your Lordships. I heard of this trouble early on Sunday morning, soon after the first inflows of the sea. It was most unfortunate that the great inundation took place early on Sunday morning, because the worst day for anything important to happen in this country is a Sunday. Dictators usually make war on us on a Sunday, because the British week-end means that nearly all the important people are away, and nothing is functioning. I was informed that there was very heavy damage and loss, that people had already been killed, and that something must be done at once. I got into contact with various Government Departments, and I must say that they were all most helpful. When the machine got into action early in the week, it functioned admirably. The Departments I had to deal with directly were the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—represented so brilliantly in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—the War Office, the Air Ministry and the Prime Minister's political department. All of them were most helpful and efficient and acted very quickly. All this talk about red tape strangling Governments, and the delays of bureaucracy, were in this case without foundation. The greatest help was given by these Departments, without any undue delay, and we should all be most grateful to them. I am very glad indeed to make that contribution from my own personal and first-hand knowledge.
We have been told by the Home Secretary in another place that at the moment the damage has been estimated—I suppose a more accurate figure will be available later—at between £40 million and £50 million. What the damage to farmlands is out of this total I do not know precisely, but I do know it is enormous; and the loss of stock has been terrible indeed—one of my own friends lost 1,000 pedigree sheep. We are further told that the cost of the emergency repairs that were carried out at once, without any formalities, Treasury approval or anything

1015
else, will be borne by the Treasury. That was stated by the Home Secretary in the debate in another place on February 19 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 511, col. 1476). The Prime Minister on February 2 in another place said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 510, col. 1483):
"It is clear that the catastrophe is one which will require to be treated on a national basis and, broadly, as a national responsibility."
Damage amounting to £40 million to £50 million—which I should have thought, if anything, was rather on the low side—cannot be dealt with by private charity. The response of the public to the appeal of the Lord Mayor has been magnificent: a large amount of money has been raised, and generous gifts have come from all over the world. To that Her Majesty's Government, I think quite properly, propose to add pound for pound, thus doubling the amount subscribed by the public here and abroad. But that, I suppose, will amount altogether to only about £4 million, representing about 10 per cent., or less, of the total damage—perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can give us the latest figure. We all understand that the Lord Mayor's Fund (this has been stated by Sir Trustram Eve) is primarily for the individual, for making good hardships and losses suffered by householders in the way of damage to furniture, the cost of immediate repairs to houses, and so on. That is right and proper, and I hope that nothing said in this debate will in any way dry up the stream of contributions to the Lord Mayor' Fund. The advantage of the Lord Mayor's Fund is, of course, that, under the leadership of Sir Trustram Eve and the Lord Mayor himself, help can be given immediately where it is most needed, to people who have suffered grievously. That is the advantage of the Lord Mayor's Fund, and I hope that that fund will continue to grow.
But that cannot be enough to meet all the losses that have been suffered. Quite properly, Sir Trustram Eve, the Lord Mayor and the Home Secretary, in describing the uses to which the Lord Mayor' Fund can be put, have said that there will be no relief from it to local or public authorities or to public limited companies; and that, although small businesses can be compensated, the ceiling there is to be £2,500. That is one
1016
of the matters which I should like to take up with Her Majesty's Government. If, according to the Prime Minister,
"The catastrophe is one which will require to be treated on a national basis and, broadly, as a national responsibility,"
then obviously these farmers and businessmen, who have lost far more than £2,500 in scores and scores of cases, the limited liability companies and the local and public authorities, will have to derive some assistance from the Treasury. I understand that that is the intention, but I feel that a statement should be made as soon as possible, because the uncertainty is harmful.
The Dutch Government—and the sufferings of the Dutch have been even greater than ours and they are deserving of all the sympathy that we and others have given—have announced that they will regard damage in their flooded areas as war damage, and compensation will be made on a war damage basis. I hope that we may do something similar. We have available the war damage assessors, who are being used to assist the administrators of the Lord Mayor's Fund—they are practised and experienced—and we have the machinery in existence which is accepted and known about. I hope, however, that they will not insist on looking at the damage before any repairs are done. That works all right where a bomb or a shell has fallen on a building, but when flood water has entered in you cannot delay too long before you begin cleaning up and starting repairs. Therefore, that is one of the points I venture to make to Her Majesty's Government and to your Lordships' House, and I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response.
It may be said. "Ah, yes, but these business are covered by insurance." Well, they are not always covered by insurance. On the East coast the premium for insurance against flood. I am informed, would be prohibitive. What they did was to subscribe—as they were bound to do, of course—to the various authorities responsible for sea defences. They thought that that was insurance enough, and that they would be made safe. They might well have been made safe if we had not had the two world wars, and particularly the Second World War. I think it is fair to say that had it not been for the Second World War, especially, more money, more material

1017
and more labour would have been spent on the sea defences; and the flood, though I think it could not have been prevented completely in the circumstances, could have been very greatly reduced. Therefore, I think it is not unfair or unjust to say that this is one of the results of the Second World War, and the case for treating it as war damage on that basis is a strong one. The very high rate of taxation which all Governments have imposed on the citizens of this country for a generation, and especially in recent years, has, in my opinion, made it very difficult for many businesses to build up reserves, and they have not the reserves to meet an emergency of this kind. Therefore, they will either have to make good the losses out of capital, if they can, or out of revenue over a great many years; and a good many will be unable to do either and will just go out of business. Those are two matters of detail, and I shall come again—and I shall not keep your Lordships very long—to some questions of general principle.
A great deal of the emergency defence work was by sandbags, and these sandbags rot quickly under the action of sea water. I am told it is a matter of months before these sandbags will fall to pieces. It is necessary, therefore, that something more permanent should be put in place of them as soon as possible. I gave notice to the noble Lord that I was going to raise this particular detailed question, which is of importance, taken over the whole vast length of the East coast which is affected. The other question, of which I regret to say I could give only very short notice to the noble Lord who will answer for the Government, is the position of the Customs and Excise with regard to dutiable goods which have been damaged. This matter has been brought to my notice only recently, but it affects a great many small business men and is important. I can describe it briefly as follows. Duty is paid on cigarettes, matches and, of course, alcoholic drinks, liquors and so on, before they go to the retailer. That duty is paid to the Customs. In the case of damage by fire, for example, to stocks of cigarettes and tobacco, if the damage is proved the Customs give a draw-back. In this case, particularly in the seaside resorts of Mablethorpe, Sutton and so on, there has been a heavy loss amongst the
1018
Café, hotel and kiosk keepers of their stocks of tobacco and matches. No decision can yet be obtained from the Customs authorities as to whether there is going to be a draw-back. In some cases the manufacturers will make a refund if the damaged packages of cigarettes, for example, are sent back to them. But where the whole of the stocks have been pulped or completely lost that cannot be done, and in any case I understand that there is no legal obligation on the manufacturers. It really comes back on the Customs.
What is happening is this. Stocks have had to be renewed again and Customs duty is paid on them, so the Treasury are making a profit on this transaction, even allowing—I have had the figures worked out—for the pound per pound which the Government are giving to the Lord Mayor's Fund. They have had the duty on the goods that have been damaged or destroyed, and they are now getting duty on the replenishments that have to go out, so they are doing very well. But that is not their intention, I am sure. The Customs authorities—I do not blame them—say, "This is a national question which must be considered on a national basis," and at the present time they cannot give a decision; which is making things very awkward for the people concerned. In spite of the short notice, I hope some information of a comforting nature will be available from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Those are the two detailed questions, and I submit they have some importance.
The question of coast protection is a very large one. I do not want to go into it in detail, but I think it will be agreed that we have been neglectful in the past and that we must make amends and not be caught like this a second time. The late Government have a good record on this matter. They passed the Coast Protection Act and provided, I think it was, £1 million for coast protection, but there has not been time for all the new works to be put in hand, with the result we all know to our sad cost. I think it is true to say that abnormal floods, like the one we are discussing, cannot be wholly guarded against. The cost of defences giving complete immunity against a flood like that which devastated so much of the East coast a few weeks ago would be greater than the

1019
value of the property damaged. Therefore, there must be a balance. That all our coastal defences are inadequate at the present time I am afraid is only too evident, and this matter should be treated as an emergency. I suggest that more money will have to be made available and also more labour and material, and no time should be lost. The parts of Essex that I know best are very much a case in point. The defences there have been so damaged that a very high tide with a very strong north wind—a storm which, in normal times, would not cause much trouble—this time, because of the damage and because of the necessarily flimsy nature of the temporary defences which have been put up, will cause trouble again. Something should be done at once on those parts of the coast. The work should be begun during the coming summer or we shall have still further loss, particularly to the agricultural properties.
This is not a Party question at all, and I am not addressing your Lordships from the Party point of view. I am glad to say that a Coast Protection Committee of both Houses, which I have been invited to join, has been formed on an all-Party basis, under the chairmanship of an honourable friend of mine in another place who has great experience on this matter, Mr. Edward Evans. He was a prophet in the wilderness for a long time on this subject. He badgered the late Government into the Coast Protection Act, which at any rate did something, and if he had been listened to and the magnitude of the task had been appreciated in time, some, at any rate, of the recent damage, disaster and suffering could have been avoided. However, we have had our lesson. I do not think there can be any excuse now for any Government, and especially Her Majesty's Government at the present time, to delay or to avoid taking the necessary measures to prevent, at any rate, the worst damage of the recent disaster recurring. I beg to move for Papers.
5.1 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has put down this Motion to-day. We all appreciate the way in which he has introduced it. I think that he was right in saying that the Government Departments have been most helpful in the way in which they
1020
have got on with this matter. If I may say so in passing, though I do not want to follow the noble Lord into the question of atomic energy and its results, he did say that he knew it was possible to bomb the clouds and so produce rain. It rather reminds me of the time when I was at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. We asked for suggestions on how we could improve matters in aircraft production. One of the suggestions found in a week's batch that I looked at was a suggestion that we might mount our anti-aircraft batteries on the clouds, because they then would be able to shoot the aircraft as one shoots driven grouse, and not so high up. It was not, of course, practicable to mount anti-aircraft batteries on the clouds, and I really do not know how the noble Lord is going to explode a bomb on a cloud. However, be that as it may, I am delighted that he has introduced this matter this afternoon.
I particularly wanted to speak to-day because, when we discussed this matter on February 19. I said that I thought, at any rate in one case, that the troops who were so promptly sent for to help in these areas of destruction had perhaps been prematurely withdrawn. I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Carrington for the action that he took in this matter. There had been, in my view, a rather premature withdrawal of troops, but owing to the action of my noble friend, and perhaps of others—I do not know—the troops are now back at this spot and have an opportunity over the low tides of this week-end of repairing that gap to which I drew attention. I believe that, if they all work with a will, they will be able to put the sandbags around it. I am much obliged for the prompt action that has been taken in that regard.
Like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I realise that sandbags are no permanent defence. They are the most convenient things quickly to fill a gap, especially when there is available a large force of men who can put them into place when the tide is low. But, of course, they will have to be backed up later by bulldozers and cranes making a real stalwart coastal wall. I have not the slightest doubt that that will be done at most of these places. I thank the Government for their prompt action in this regard throughout this emergency. I hope it is realised

1021
that, on the question of agricultural land—and we must all realise that the longer land remains under salt water the more difficult it is to get it back into cultivation—these prompt steps may save a great deal of expense later on. I believe the one thing that it is fatal to do is to plough the salt into the ground. Therefore, it is necessary to take some steps to neutralise the effect of the salt. I believe that gypsum, or something of that sort, may be applied. It is important thereafter to see that the fields are well drained. I hope that the main assistance which the Government will give will be the provision of those materials and of the draining machines, so that the farmers themselves may be able to do the work, with apparatus supplied by the Ministry of Agriculture through the local county agricultural committees, or through some other agency of that sort.
Another thing that I am told is liable to happen on agricultural land after being flooded by sea water, is that very rank grass starts growing up, or is liable to grow up, a year or two later. It may well be that free weedkiller, or whatever is appropriate—because it cannot be ploughed in—or cutting machines, should be provided. It is that kind of practical step which the Government can take to help the farmers to help themselves to get the land back into cultivation as quickly as possible. I should like to hear that some such ideas are contemplated for the future by Her Majesty's Government. Like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I very much hope that the Government will, through the appropriate local people, survey all these coast defences and see that they are quickly put into such a state that something like this cannot occur again. But, from the attitude that has been shown by the Government in the whole of this matter, I am quite certain that they will do that, and that they will also take any proper steps to help those farmers to get their land back into cultivation.
5.7 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi for raising this matter this afternoon. Noble Lords on the other side will, I think, acquit me of any undue liking for their policy generally, but in this instance I wish to
1022
pay tribute, if they will allow me, to the work of the Prime Minister's Committee, and particularly the energetic, broad, sympathetic and understanding way in which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Home Secretary, handled that work. As my noble friend said, the red tape was cut. It was not only cut, but it was completely done away with for the time being. I hope that that broad, sympathetic outlook will continue and that the great machine will not once again get back into its stride and go grinding away in the old way that we all know so well.
I think it is right, bearing in mind all that is being done, that we should also pay tribute to the way in which the great firms of public works contractors rose to their responsibilities in this matter. To name them would, of course, be invidious. Not only the public works contractors but, in this instance, I think one can say, quite justly and rightly, the great insurance companies, have played their part in helping many families to tide over a period of great distress. But there were not only the Government Departments; there were the local authorities, the regional hospital boards, the hospital management committees, and so on. I know how one chairman of a hospital management committee group arranged for all possible cases to be sent home, in preparation for cases of pneumonia that were likely to be brought in. Up to the time that I last saw the chairman, over 150 cases had been provided for in that way.
It is this great spirit of improvisation latent in our people which has been called out by this tragedy. May I, perhaps, declare an interest in this, and ask your Lordships to remember the work of such voluntary organisations as the citizens advice bureaux, who immediately arranged for trained, skilled bodies of helpers to proceed to the stricken areas, where they rendered invaluable assistance. This takes me back to the grim, dark days of the war, when I was chairman of a civil defence committee in a not unimportant county borough. In those days I came across several individual deeds of courage and self-sacrifice. Let us remember the many instances of courage and self-sacrifice which obtained in this crisis. Just one such instance came to my notice; no doubt others could tell of similar cases. There was the case of a nurse whose home had been

1023
practically destroyed by the surging flood; her elderly parents had also been flooded out, and she was not aware what had happened to them. Yet, on that dark, cold, grey morning she insisted that the team of R.A.F. rescuers should go from one to another of the elderly and sick cases of which she knew, and should rescue those people, before she herself accepted any offer of assistance to proceed to a rest centre. In times like these it is deeds of that sort that make one proud of the people of this country.
I should like to conclude by asking the Government as did my noble friend, what is going to happen in the coming winter? The sandbagging has been a wonderful achievement in order to deal with a temporary position, but in the winter, from October onwards, many of these areas will again become vulnerable. I do not ask this question in any spirit of complaint, because I feel that the Government have got along so splendidly up to now that they will envisage the state of affairs that is likely to prevail when winter again comes upon us. I thank my noble friend for raising this matter, and again express the thanks of the noble Lords on this side for all that the Government and others have done in this Great national emergency.
5.13 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords. I am sure that the whole House would wish to be associated with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and also those of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, when they express appreciation of the truly remarkable efforts which have been put forward by all the organisations concerned in the relief of distress and the repair of damage caused by the storm and floods on the night of January 31. I think we can all be proud of what has been done.
I myself had the opportunity of visiting the flooded areas in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Essex, and the devastation that I saw just after the floods had taken place was truly dreadful, not only in terms of human suffering and loss of homes and personal belongings, but also to the sea defences and to agricultural land. Concrete sea walls had been smashed to
1024
smithereens, and sand dunes 30 feet high had completely disappeared. Sea walls which had been perfectly adequate for centuries had been swept away. Certainly the task which confronted the rescuers on that Sunday morning was a formidable one, but I can bear personal witness to the energy and determination, and the skill, which they brought to their task and, indeed, the success which they achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi said, the tidal conditions on that night were far worse than anything that previous experience could have led us to expect or provide against. I am not in a position, any more than he or my noble friend Lord Llewellin, is to discuss why that was so—whether it was due to atomic bombs, to changes in the climate, or to some other cause. But certainly the tidal conditions were quite unique.
After the flooding of Horsey, in Norfolk, and of other places, in 1938, new standards were set for sea defences. In 1949, when record tidal levels were reached and floods occurred again in many places in Norfolk, still higher standards of sea defence were adopted. Yet the tides on the night of January 31 were nearly 2 feet above the record tides of 1949, and the sea defences were overtopped for a great part of their length. Of course, the disaster was made much worse by the fact that it was dark, so that people were trapped in their homes. The scale of the problem which faced the authorities is difficult to imagine. Over 32,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes, and many of these had to be housed by the public authorities. Fortunately, the response by private householders who had offered temporary billets to the homeless was most prompt and generous. In the areas most seriously affected, from Yorkshire in the north, to Kent, in the south, there was an immediate response by the public and by the local authorities to give every help to all who had been forced to leave their homes. Householders in the safer parts of the flooded districts threw open the doors of their homes, and the district councils, without waiting for instructions from central authority, county councils, or anybody else immediately made preparations to receive families who had nowhere to go. I know that the Government Departments concerned, and the district and county councils, will read with

1025
interest and gratitude the tribute which was paid to them by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Burden. They have been complimented on the way in which they worked, without red tape. They acted very promptly. They get a good many kicks, and I know that they will be very grateful indeed for the words which the noble Lords have spoken.
By February 14 the number of homeless remaining in rest centres had gone down to a little over 2,000. The payment of lodging allowance was, of course, a distinct encouragement to householders to take in evacuees. But as time went by, many of the evacuees returned to their houses to begin cleaning up operations, and by March 1 the numbers in rest centres had dropped to about 500. The emergency feeding arrangements have worked very well throughout, and special attention has been given to the needs of babies. The sick and the old have, so far as possible, been segregated and provided with care in sick bays, many of which are manned night and day by members of the British Red Cross Society and the St. John Ambulance Brigade. Our grateful thanks are due to these and to all other voluntary organisations which have helped in the emergency.
It has not proved possible to state the exact amount of damage to dwellings, but preliminary surveys show that about 25,000 houses were flooded and that 350 to 450 were destroyed. In addition, 200 houses may be beyond repair. However, this is no measure of the loss to individuals. When houses were flooded a great deal of furniture was destroyed or badly damaged. Many houses had inches, or in some cases feet, of mud or sand washed into them, and a good many others were thick with evil-smelling mud. The work of repair has gone on well and local authorities have now done enough first-aid repairs to ensure bare habitability, so that people can get back to their homes. Many overseas Governments have made generous contributions to the work of restoration, and we are extremely grateful to them. So much for the damage to property.
A considerable amount of interest has been shown in the system of flood warnings that was introduced shortly after the first disastrous floods at the end of January. This system, fortunately, has not been tested by an actual emergency,
1026
but on the whole it appears that the arrangements have been helpful and have worked efficiently. We have therefore made arrangements for a similar system to be operated during the two periods of spring tides, one of which ends to-morrow and the next of which begins on March 13 and lasts until March 20. This system is operating in much the same way as the earlier one. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know exactly what we are doing in this way. The headquarters office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries receives information on weather conditions from the Meteorological Office, and information about tide conditions from the harbour masters at five selected points on the East coast. The points are Aberdeen, Middlesbrough, Grimsby, Great Yarmouth and Harwich. In the light of this information, the Ministry's office informs the river board in each case of the expected height of the tide above the predicted level, while the B.B.C., for the purposes of their hourly announcements, are given the expected levels of tides as compared with the previous tides. Each river board has a liaison officer from the police, who is appointed by the chief constable. We feel sure that by this method it will be possible to give adequate warning of any threatened danger of further flooding.
LORD STRABOLGI: Do I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries are the overriding and superior authority on this matter? Do they receive information from the Admiralty and the Air Ministry of storm warnings and the like? In other words, is all meteorological and weather information concentrated in them?
LORD CARRINGTON: The information we get is from the Meteorological Office, so far as weather conditions are concerned, and from the harbour masters at these various points on tide conditions. We also have, to help us, somebody who is expert in reading the signs about tide conditions, so that we can tell as soon as possible what the tide is going to be. But the information is all co-ordinated in my Department in London.
Now that the first emergency has passed, the main task remaining, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi has stressed, is the restoration of our sea defences and

1027
the consolidation of the emergency work that has already been done. This is the concern of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and for that reason I think it would be proper for me to tell your Lordships as much as I can about that particular aspect of the problem and our plans for the future. It is the river boards who are responsible for the maintenance of the embankments which were damaged during the storm. Six river boards are chiefly concerned in this case and these control about 1,000 miles of embankments, from Kent to Yorkshire. These boards took the first shock of the disaster, and have exercised local control of the repair work ever since. Perhaps may say here that the country owes an immense debt to the river board engineers in charge of the emergency work. They worked day and night, and were often without sleep for long periods. Without their specialist knowledge and their common sense this crisis could never have been mastered and brought under control as it has been.
The Ministry's organisation was strengthened by bringing in engineers from the provinces, and the London office was linked by teleprinter to each of the river boards' flood headquarters. The engineering staff of the river boards was considerably strengthened, over sixty engineers from others areas being brought in to strengthen the staffs of the river board chief engineers. The Association of Consulting Engineers also made contact with the Ministry at an early stage so that the fullest use could be made of their services in the emergency. The Association continues to co-ordinate requests by river boards for the services of consultants.
In all this work the Services gave the greatest help, and at the peak some 14,000 men were employed on emergency work. Practically the whole of the work has now been taken on by the river boards' own organisations and contractors' organisations, and at present at least sixty firms of contractors are engaged. The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors and the Contractors Plant Association put their organisations at the disposal of the Ministry, and offers of help from their members have been matched with requests for help from river boards. Nearly
1028
100 large pumps—some from a reserve created after the 1947 freshwater floods—were mobilised by the Ministry and sent to the affected areas so that the flood water could be cleared quickly from the land.
Fortunately, the weather has been kind during recent high spring tides, and so far the repaired defences have held. However it is by no means an overstatement to say that the need for restoring our broken sea defences has presented us with one of the greatest civil engineering problems we have ever had to face. Completely up-to-date figures are not available but the flooded area has now been reduced to roughly 12,000 acres. This compares with an earlier estimate of between 150,000 and 175,000 acres of agricultural land which was originally flooded on the night of January 31. Approximately 95 per cent. of the breaches have been closed, and with a few exceptions those remaining open are relatively unimportant, such as the one at Narpips, which we hope will be closed during these low tides.
Looking ahead from emergency to permanent works—the point which interested Lord Strabolgi—defences along a thousand miles of coastline have to be restored and made strong during the spring and summer to withstand the tides and storms which next autumn and winter will inevitably bring. In six or seven months, work will have to be planned, and will have to be done, which would in normal times be spread over ten to fifteen years. This is an immense task, but Her Majesty's Government are determined that nothing shall stand in the way of achieving it. The river boards concerned have been told that the Government will meet the full cost of all sea defence works which they do before the end of September to provide, so far as may be, the same standard of protection as existed before January 31. I might remind your Lordships that the normal maximum rate of grant payable by the Government is 85 per cent.
Time will not generally allow more than the restoration of the original standard of protection, and we shall have to consider whether in the long run more should be attempted. But where major industries, dwelling-houses or important farming areas are affected, it is obvious that risks must not be taken, and plans

1029
will be made immediately to give greater protection than existed before. Where such further works are done an appropriate rate of grant will be negotiated by the Ministry with the river board concerned. The financing of works outstanding at the end of September will have to be considered later in the light of progress made by then. The immediate task is to do as much as is humanly possible in restoring our sea defences before the autumn. It is perhaps a little premature to estimate the volume or work to be done, and the labour, plant and materials needed, but my estimate is that the cost of work may be of the order of £8 million to £10 million.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the river boards will work speedily together in drawing up plans for permanent works, and putting them into execution. My right honourable friend the Minister is setting up an inter-Departmental committee of officials to speed up the help that other Departments may be able to give and to see that any problems the works may raise are solved promptly. When plans for works are ready there must be no delay in acting on them; and a Bill will be introduced shortly to give river boards special emergency powers until the end of this year to acquire land for erecting sea defences and flood embankments and, where necessary, for securing clay or other material to build them. We think that this is an essential and urgent measure, because it would obviously be disastrous if, when works had been planned and were ready to go ahead, they were held up by procedural delays. We therefore have to choose between drastic powers and the risk of entering next winter inadequately prepared to meet the normal winter tides and storms. I feel that there can be no doubt what our choice ought to be and must be.
It has already been announced that any main drains or ditches leading to those drains that had become blocked by flood debris and which were cleared within one month of the appropriate breach in the wall being closed would attract a grant covering the whole cost. We have now decided because of the difficulties which have been encountered that the period for which that work will attract a 100 per cent. grant shall be
1030
extended until April 30, 1953, The scope of the grant has already been extended to cover all drains and ditches and the repair of culverts—whether these are within the responsibility of a drainage authority or a private owner—where remedial work was made necessary by flood borne debris. Appropriate information and instructions have been sent to the river boards, internal drainage boards and county agricultural executive committees in the areas affected and I have no doubt that they will give whatever assistance they can with this work. We are faced, as I have said, with an immense task in the next seven months, and nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of achieving it so far as human energy and resources can provide. I trust that your. Lordships will support the Government in the action they have taken and are proposing to take to provide the greatest possible degree of protection for our coastal areas before next Autumn.
I now turn to the important question of restoring the fertility of agricultural land which has been flooded—a matter which Lord Llewellin touched upon. In most respects this is a long-term problem. Farmers have been advised not to attempt to cultivate land that has been flooded until samples of the soil have been taken and analysed for their salt content. The Ministry's Soil Analytical Service has been organised to deal with large numbers of samples free of charge to farmers. This work is well under way and expert advice will be given by the county agricultural executive committees and the National Agricultural Advisory Service as to the steps that should be taken to get the land back into production. In order to ensure that technical advice to farmers should be based on all available knowledge, a conference was held on February 24 last. This was attended by two experts from the Netherlands, one from France and one from the Food and Agriculture Organisation, as well as British research workers and advisory officers. At this conference there was a full exchange of information and the members of the National Agricultural Advisory Service will have the benefit of the advice of these international experts.
The first survey of the salt content of the soil is being carried out as soon as possible after the flood waters have

1031
cleared from each particular area. Further analyses will be made to determine the degree of salting throughout the soil and sub-soil. Provisional recommendations will be made as to treatment and cropping as soon as the analytical results are available. As regards the treatment itself, the application of gypsum to arable land will hasten its recovery by counteracting the effect of salt impregnation on the soil structure. The quantity needed as determined by the soil analyses will be supplied free to arable farmers. In some instances they may have to collect it from a central distributive point. There are some areas that may need special measures if they are to be kept in agriculture. In the main they comprise heavy land, much of it of a marginal nature, that was so heavily impregnated with salt that economic cultivation or grazing is unlikely for several years. The Government are studying what can be done with land of this kind. As an additional help, we have announced that farmers who have ploughed grassland under the ploughing grants scheme but have been prevented by the floods from carrying out further operations will be eligible for special payments at the statutory rates.
I now turn to the financial help which has been and will be given. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently made some mention in another place of the scale of effort which had already been made by the Government in bringing immediate relief to the affected areas. As I have said, members of Her Majesty's Forces have been made available in large numbers. Multitudes of sandbags have been provided. These items represent an expenditure of more than £2,500,000. The provision of emergency feeding facilities, lodging allowances and national assistance grants may amount to about another £100,000. In addition, first-aid repairs to houses fall to be paid for in full from the Exchequer. I have already told the House of the assistance which the Government propose to give in the restoration of the sea defences and the rehabilitation of agricultural land which we have acknowledged as our responsibility. This adds up to a very considerable sum indeed.
In broad terms the relief of personal distress is a matter for the Lord Mayor's
1032
Flood and Tempest Distress Fund, and we are greatly indebted to the Lord Mayor for his initiative in this respect and for the time and energy with which he has tackled a vital task in the midst of so many other preoccupations. As was clearly stated by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place, the losses caused by these floods are very large, and I cannot emphasise too strongly that to give reasonable relief for the personal losses of those whose homes, furniture and clothing have been severely damaged or swept away, for the damage sustained by small shopkeepers, farmers, fishermen and others will require a large sum, even taking into account the Government's pound for pound contribution. There is, therefore, full scope for the generosity of the people of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me earlier what total the Lord Mayor's Fund had reached. I understand that this morning it reached £2,000,000. I can safely say that donations will not be misused, for the Lord Mayor has gathered round him a very strong and experienced advisory council which has quickly got to work, and I know that arrangements for giving relief are well in hand. Having said this about the Lord Mayor's Fund, I think I should make it clear that its administration is entirely a matter for the Lord Mayor. The Government cannot, and should not, be expected to answer questions on that subject. No doubt, the Lord Mayor will, in due time, render some account of his stewardship, and if there are any detailed points which noble Lords wish to raise, I suggest that they should approach the Secretary of the Fund at the Mansion House. The question of what types of person or body are to receive payments for relief of distress is primarily a matter for the Committee set up by the Lord Mayor. No arrangements have been made for payments to public limited liability companies since their position differs in many ways from that of individuals or small firms. In any case in which distress to individuals is involved, application can be made to the Lord Mayor's Fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me a question about damage to duty-paid tobacco or other goods. A small shopkeeper who may be eligible for relief from the Lord Mayor's Fund can put in for the full replacement value of any

1033
damaged goods. Public companies which have insurance cover should include the full value of the goods in any claim under their polices. It is not the practice of Governments to make any repayment of Customs and Excise duty in such cases. In addition, the tax element cannot always be readily identified.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Lord a question on that point? This is a matter of great importance to the people concerned; it is in regard to this limit of £2,500. Suppose a shopkeeper has had dutiable goods to the value of more than £2,500 damaged or destroyed, what happens then?
LORD CARRINGTON: I have intimated, the administration of the Lord Mayor's Fund is a matter for the Lord Mayor. As I understand this point, it depends very much on what total the Lord Mayor's Fund reaches. I do not think there is anything sacrosanct, so to speak, about the figure of £2,500.
Finally, I am sure the House will agree with me that the sensible thing for the Government to do is to ensure that any lessons which this disaster can teach us do not go unlearned. It was with this in mind that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in the debate in another place about a fortnight ago, announced that the Government intended to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the recent floods. I am glad to be able to announce that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has consented to become the Chairman. I know that your Lordships will agree that nobody is more fitted by his wide experience of public affairs, and also by the authority which attaches to his name, than the noble Viscount, to carry out this very important task. Her Majesty's Government are grateful to the noble Viscount for agreeing so willingly to undertake the chairmanship of this Committee.
The Committee's terms of reference are as follows:

1. To examine the causes of the recent floods and the possibilities of a recurrence in Great Britain.

2. To consider what margin of safety for sea defences would be reasonable and practicable having regard on the one hand to the estimated risks involved and, on the other, to the cost of protective measures.

3. To consider whether any further measures should be taken by a system of warning or otherwise to lessen the risk of loss of life and serious damage to property.

1034

4. To review the lessens to be learned from the disaster and the administrative and financial responsibilities of the various bodies concerned in providing and maintaining sea defences and replacing them in the event of damage; and to make recommendations.

We hope to be able to announce the full membership of the Committee in the course of the next few days.
I cannot end my remarks without thanking all those who have so kindly given help to us from abroad. We have had very many generous gifts from countries all over the world, both inside and outside the Commonwealth, and we are most grateful to all those warmhearted Governments and peoples. May I end as I began? All the organisations and individuals affected by the floods have made remarkable efforts and met with great success. I hope your Lordships will agree, after having heard what I have had to say, that included among that number is Her Majesty's Government, who have acted promptly and efficiently and with considerable generosity.
5.41 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before I withdraw my Motion, I should like to address myself to the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House. We have had a most important statement from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for which I am sure your Lordships are grateful, and I am very glad that for once this House has been the scene in which an important statement has been made, particularly in regard to agriculture. The statement about the payment for sea defences completed before September is most satisfactory and most important. It is a real act of statesmanship. With regard to the appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, as Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, may I say, speaking, I am sure, on behalf of my noble friends sitting on these Benches, that no appointment could be more welcome? I am certain the work this Committee will do under such an able Chairman will be of the greatest value to the country.
The distressing thing is that 12,000 acres are still under sea water. That is a terrible business, and I want here to make a suggestion. The Government of Israel have a great deal of up-to-date scientific knowledge of clearing soil of salt. If the noble Lord or his Department would communicate with the

1035
Hebrew University at Jerusalem, they would get information on the wonderful work that has been done there in clearing the verges of the Dead Sea of salt. Land that was considered useless for centuries is now growing wonderful crops as a result of the scientific treatment by scientists, mainly emigrés from German persecution.
LORD CARRINGTON: I will certainly look into that.
LORD STRABOLGI: Unless that has been thought of, I am very glad to make that suggestion.
Why I wanted to address myself particularly to the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House is that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, apparently was not authorised to make any reply to the questions I asked, of which I gave notice, about compensation for businesses outside the scope of the Lord Mayor's Fund. We all know the work of the Lord Mayor's Fund, and we all admire it and have every confidence in it, but it is for individual cases of distress. There are cases of businesses that cannot possibly be helped by the Lord Mayor's Fund and which will go out of existence altogether unless something is done. This is a serious matter. We are now treating farmers—and I make this remark in your Lordships' House with great trepidation—as a privileged class. We are following the custom in France, where the peasants can do no wrong and are nurtured, fostered and cosseted in every kind of way because of their political power. Here we are doing the same thing with our farmers. It is lucky for the farmers—I congratulate them—but we are putting them in a privileged and special position. A wealthy farmer cultivating a large area of fruitful soil is a capitalist and businessman: he has to be nowadays. He is going to get full compensation, presumably not from the Lord Mayor's Fund, but from the Treasury. The compensation cannot possibly come out of the Lord Mayor's Fund.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, is it for that reason? Is it not because we all realise that food production is so essential that we must get this land restored to such a condition that it can go on producing, food for us?
LORD STRABOLGI: We have realised that after a good many years. The noble Lord has always been preaching alone that line. I realise that. But other businesses are important also.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, farmers will get compensation for the loss of livestock from the Lord Mayor's Fund in exactly the same way as everybody else.
LORD STRABOLGI: I understood from statements in another place that it would be a Government responsibility.
LORD CARRINGTON: The rehabilitation of land is the Government's responsibility.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is not from the Lord Mayor's Fund?
LORD CARRINGTON: There is a difference between rehabilitation of land and the loss of livestock.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged; I appreciate that. I thought there would also be compensation, according to the statements made in another place.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, there are two different things: the cow and the land. The cow is compensated for out of the Lord Mayor's Fund and the land is a national charge.
LORD STRABOLGI: Why is the land made a national charge and not plant and machinery in businesses? That is my complaint. We are picking out the farmer for special treatment. I am glad from the farmer's point of view. I imagine the time has not really come for a decision to be taken on this national question—and it is a national question. I want to take advantage here of the welcome presence of the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House, who is a member of the Cabinet, to press this matter home. More will be heard about this question. The position of uncertainty is doing harm and I hope it will be relieved. I thank the noble Lord for his most interesting statement and for the answers he gave to my questions. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EFFICIENCY OF BRITISH RAILWAYS
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, to call attention to the Report of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe issued in Geneva on January 17 in the Transport Section of which it is stated that in Britain: (a) the number of journeys per person per year fell from twenty-eight in 1938 to twenty in 1951 during which time other European countries registered a striking increase in Railway passenger traffic; (b) the frequency of service, as measured by the number of trains per mile of line, has dropped, Britain now coming third after Switzerland and Holland, having been second in 1950 and first in 1938; (c) the utilisation of passenger coaches and goods wagons is the lowest in Europe; (d) the turn-round time of goods wagons is 10.4 days compared to 4.3 days in Germany; (e) the ratio of staff to traffic is the highest in comparison to West European countries; and to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps in the reorganisation now under discussion to improve the efficiency of the system.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord might have introduced his Question by making certain remarks but as he has not chosen to do so, I shall reply shortly. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not bring this matter up on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, because it would appear to be germane to the subject discussed then. Therefore, I hope he will excuse me if I do not reply at great length to the points he has raised. These points are intricate and detailed, and would be worthy of a volume in reply. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue his investigations, the Transport Commission will be glad to hear from him and to deal in more detail than I shall be able to do to-day with the points he has raised. We are aware of the Report of the Economic Commission, which in some cases I should say is the answer to the poet's player:
"O, wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us."
Of course it is an advantage to see that, but to a large extent these statistics are taken from figures published in this country. I do not propose to challenge them in any way, but they must be taken
1038
with a certain measure of caution, and to say that they are reliable indices of our railway system in this country would not be an accurate statement.
As I have said, I do not want to go into great detail, but I feel that a moment's reflection will show that the general structure or this country is entirely different, for instance, from that of Switzerland. We have the most densely populated country in the world, with the exception, I think, of one; and we have more railway lines per acre of land than any other country, with the exception, I think, of Belgium. The position, therefore, in many ways is different from that which exists in other places. If I may give an example, in Switzerland obviously the railway lines have to run along the valleys, and in some sense the traffic is necessarily concentrated into certain areas. That is the first point.
The second point is that the railways anywhere have to take careful consideration of the demands made of them. They cannot run services finless the social and economic factors make it necessary and desirable to do so. The noble Lord in his Question has drawn attention to the fact that the number of journeys per person has fallen between the years 1938 and 1951. That is perfectly true. It is probably also true that the average length of journey has increased, and that a certain transfer to road passenger transport has taken place. The noble Lord has also emphasised that the frequency of services represented by the number of trains per mile of line has fallen. That depends to a great extent on the demand made on the railway services. I must also say that in the Report mentioned by the noble Lord it is emphasised that there are various ways in which these figures can be presented. With regard to utilisation, again I would simply say—and I think this is fairly well known—that, for instance, in the export trade of coal, it is common practice to have a great deal of storage in wagons. It could be argued whether that is a good or a bad thing, but generally it is considered to be more economical and in the national interest to hold a reserve of coal on rail and in ports ready for instant shipping, rather than to run the risk of delaying ships. One result of that, of course, is a relatively slow turn-round of carriages.

1039
I would also mention that at the present time the railways in this country are, in fact, running on an even financial keel, whereas I think it is common knowledge that fairly large deficit payments are made in a number of countries in Europe at present. I do not want to elaborate that point. It is the opinion of the Commission—who hold the view firmly—that if the restrictions which successive Governments have imposed on capital expenditure had not been necessary, the railways would have been able to show much more satisfactory results. I should say this, too, in fairness to the railways. Of course, we are not entirely satisfied that everything has been done, and I do not think the railwaymen themselves are satisfied that everything is as good as it might be. However, I think it is fair to say that improvements have taken place, and are taking place—indeed, it would be very sad if that were not the case. If I may take one or two examples, one important yardstick sometimes used is net tons per total engine hour in service. That figure is generally regarded as a fairly useful index, and it has shown a fairly marked increase. In 1938 the figure was 461, in 1948 it was 543, and in 1951 it was 605, an increase of 30 per cent. Locomotive failures now average one per 32,000 miles, as opposed to one per 15,000 miles in 1949. I am not going to pretend that those are decisive factors; I am merely indicating that progress is taking place, which is what we should all hope.
We believe that improvements can be made, and I think that that is also the view of a great many in the railway world. We have in front of this House at the present time a Bill which proposes quite considerable reorganisation of the railways, and we very much hope that in decentralisation, the freeing of the railways in regard to charges, and in other ways, there will be the opportunity of a really marked improvement. I am sure that that is the hope of every one of us. I have not dealt with the noble Lord's second Question, and the noble Lord can raise that if he desires to. I have dealt briefly with these points, but I can assure the noble Lord that they have not been missed and that we have them fully in mind.

THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
5.55 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, to call attention to the importance of making known the productive efficiency of nationalised industries, and to ask that a Report on the productivity of British Railways be issued as a White Paper at an early date so that this House may have the advantage of this vital information prior to the Committee stage of the Transport Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I must confess here that I am at something of a loss to understand just what the noble Lord has in mind. I think I can say with approval from all sides of the House that if there is one aspect of nationalised industries on which we all agree it is that the statistical information provided is very good. The National Coal Board have weekly reports of output, absenteeism and shifts, apart from other reports which come out in a wider field. The same general remark can be made in regard to the gas and electricity undertakings, both centrally and in regard to the Boards. With regard to transport, we have, first, the weekly statistical summary, with which no doubt the noble Lord is familiar; we have the annual report and the financial statement. I am not quite clear just what fresh information the noble Lord requires. I suspect that he is probably approaching this as an engineer, and is anxious to find some reliable objective index which would indicate the efficiency of these industries, particularly in the nationalised railways.
Of course, it is possible to show an index in regard to cost per unit; it is possible to show an index in regard to output per man; or it is possible to show an index in relation to consumption of raw materials. But what I do not think the noble Lord will ever show is a unit of productive efficiency, because even the world of science, which delights in units, has never invented that one. I doubt very much whether it is possible to show an objective unit of productive efficiency. I thought the noble Lord would say something in introducing this matter and indicate exactly what he has in mind. All I can say again is that if he cares to

1041
communicate with the Commission, if he has some special point in mind, I am sure they will listen carefully to the point he wishes to emphasise. I can assure him that both the Commission and the Government are most anxious that the highest possible measure of efficiency should be achieved in this sphere, which is of great importance. As the noble Lord knows, we shall be in Committee on the Transport Bill next week, and I hope that in the course of that time he may explain more precisely what he has in mind.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and say that all that has been said with regard to the first Question—namely, that Her Majesty's Government have in view the promotion of a higher standard of efficiency, is most satisfactory. I would apologise to your Lordships for the fact
1042
that I did not make these points in the Second Reading debate, for the sole reason that I was one of the last to put my name down, and for the convenience of the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader of your Lordships' House, who had an important engagement elsewhere, I stepped out of the debate. It is for that reason that I have put down these two Questions to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I must point out that this is an unstarred Question. The noble Lord is entitled to ask the Question, but he has not the right of reply.
LORD SEMPILL: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I will take steps to raise the matter on another occasion.
House adjourned at two minutes past six o'clock.