Lords Sitting of 24 November 1954

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

Prayers
The Lord Kindersley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Monteagle of Brandon—Took the Oath.

THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the plans for extending the Imperial College of Science and Technology will involve the removal of the Imperial Institute from its existing site; at what date this is likely to materialise; what plans are being prepared in the meantime for the future accommodation of the Imperial Institute; and when these plans will be approved.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have under active consideration the future of the Imperial Institute in relation to the present plans, which have been announced to Parliament, for the further development in South Kensington of the Imperial College of Science and Technology. They appreciate the importance of an early decision, but I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement to-day.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl if he will remind his right honourable friend the Minister of Education that the Answer rather tends to put the cart before the horse. The important thing is to get the question of the Imperial Institute settled satisfactorily before we deal with the question of the extension of the Imperial College of Science and Technology.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the right position of the cart and the horse. In the meanwhile, I think can answer on his behalf to the extent of saying that he certainly does appreciate the very close interconnection of the two questions.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the Report of the Tweedsmuir Committee on the Imperial Institute was published over two years ago, and whether he can say what is the reason for the continuing delay in reaching a decision?
EARL DE LA WARR: It is a very difficult subject. I can assure the noble Earl that the matter is having very close consideration.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask why it is necessary to move the Imperial Institute? It has been in position for seventy or eighty years, and it is a very important institute in Colonial affairs. Why should there be any question of moving it from its own home? Is it not possible for the noble Earl to move some of the lodgers who are there, and so give the Institute more room in its own premises?
EARL DE LA WARR: I can only repeat that all these very important questions are under the close consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

CAR PARKING IN ROYAL PARKS
2.39 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of forthcoming increased restrictions on parking, unfrequented parts of the Royal Parks might be made available as car parks between the hours of 9.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, such as the road north of the Serpentine; the road in front of the Albert Memorial; the inner circular road in Regent's Park; and whether parts of Rotten Row might be so used, since equestrian traffic between those hours on midweek days is very slight.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of Works has to balance the need to maintain the amenities of the Royal Parks and their use for rest and recreation against the very serious need for more space for parking motor cars. My honourable friend is discussing with the Minister of Transport the arrangements for the parking of cars in the Royal Parks in Central London. There are objections to allowing parking in the particular areas mentioned by my noble friend, but the matter is being considered. An announcement will be made in due course by my honourable friend.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.

ENVELOPES WITH EMBOSSED STAMPS
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when envelopes with embossed stamps of the present reign will be put on sale in post offices.]
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, ordinary envelopes and the smallest size of registered envelope bearing embossed stamps of the present reign, in red and dove-grey respectively, will be on sale at all Post Offices on Monday, November 29. Registered envelopes in the larger sizes will be issued later.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. The object of it is to allow the Appellate Committee to continue their sittings, notwithstanding the Prorogation of your Lordships' House. It affects only Thursday afternoon and Monday, and the Appellate Committee intend to go on hearing cases on those days. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in pursuance of the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and the resolution of this House of the 4th November, 1953, leave be given to the Appellate Committee to meet after the Prorogation of Parliament for the purpose of hearing such appeals as have been referred to them—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LONDON AND PARIS AGREEMENTS
2.42 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by the Marquess of Salisbury: to resolve, That this House approves the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Western Europe as expressed in the Agreement reached in London on October 3, 1954, and in Paris on October 23, 1954.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, from what I heard and read of the debate yesterday, I felt that there was evidently very general agreement with the Resolution moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. But just as it is said that while all men are equal, some men are more equal than others, so I feel that some noble Lords gave their approval with less approval than others. In particular, I felt that the approval of my noble friend Lord Stansgate stopped a very long way short of enthusiasm, and that had he been on the Reception Committee he would not have accorded the Foreign Secretary a ticker-tape drive. At the same time, I am bound to say that I felt there was a good deal in what the noble Viscount said on the illusory nature of the twelve German divisions.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, paid a most striking tribute to his old chief, the Foreign Secretary, with whom he once went into the wilderness, only to make a most triumphant return to the Promised Land. I would not dissent from one single word of that tribute, even if I do utter a modest word of caution. I have seen a great many of these waves of enthusiasm such as are now rising round the Foreign Secretary. I remember, for instance, Locarno. I was in Vienna at the time and in those days I was a Liberal. I remember writing to Isaac Foot, whom I always regarded

1893
as the spiritual father of the Liberal Party, begging him to urge some restraint upon the Party in giving approval to that particular episode, because it was clear to me from the beginning, as I am sure it was to many others, that we simply did not dispose of the forces which would enable us to implement the pledges which we gave under Locarno. Well, both Foreign Secretaries. Sir Anthony and Sir Austin, got the Garter. I hope Sir Anthony's Garter will be associated with more lasting results than was Sir Austin's and will not be one of those instances which Lord Melbourne had in mind when he said that there was "no damned merit" about the Order.
The essential thing to remember, I feel, is that the London Agreements represent nothing final. I remember that in a recent speech the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, used a mountaineering analogy about one word bringing down an avalanche. That was quite an erroneous analogy, but I must say that these Agreements do remind me of another experience which all climbers know—that is of surmounting a shoulder which one supposes is the last, only to find a long further series of shoulders opening out to one's eyes. That is the position with these Agreements; they represent the surmounting of merely one shoulder. I agree that to do that is always something, and the only way to get to the top is to go stolidly on, surmounting shoulder after shoulder. But we shall not get to the top with these Agreements, and I feel that a very weary ascent still lies before us, in which our national genius for calm and tolerance in international relations will be most certainly required. In that respect I would urge the Government: be not too impatient to press on. Again it is in our national genius to treat time as a friend and not as an enemy to be wrestled with. That is a friendship which has served us well, and at this juncture I believe it may serve us well again to be calm, tolerant and not too impatient.
I noticed two points of great interest in the noble Marquess's speech, especially where he was dealing with the question of the Commonwealth and the old argument that it was difficult for us to go in with any European combination because our prime duty is to the Commonwealth. I have never been able to follow that
1894
argument, because it seems to me that whatever strengthens our position in Europe must automatically strengthen the position of the Commonwealth. I feel quite sure that as the result of the commitment in Europe into which we have entered under the London Agreements, the position of the Commonwealth is also immensely strengthened. If these Agreements and this commitment make our position more secure here in Europe, then I am sure that automatically the position of the Commonwealth is also strengthened.
Then the noble Marquess dwelt at some length on the controls of German rearmament which are provided by the London Agreements. He used the word "considerable"—"considerable" control, I am a little sceptical about that. I think this "considerable" control exists only on paper, and in the past, as we know to our cost, German generals have shown themselves very clever indeed at evading such controls. These paper controls will not give us safety: the only safety lies in Germany becoming a good European—if, indeed, to do so is within her powers. Then there will be no need of control. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in his speech yesterday, very cautiously but I think very advisedly reminded us of the German war crimes, that ghastly record of crimes against civilisation. But those crimes were at any rate committed in war time. On my way home my ship happened to put in at Walvish Bay in German South-West Africa, and I read an account of German colonial rule in that Colony and of the sickening and abominable crimes which they committed against the natives. Those crimes had not even the excuse of being committed in war; they were committed in time of peace in cold blood, and they stain the German name. The noble Earl has said that one great difficulty about the Germans is that they can be stampeded (that was the word he used) like sheep. That is only too true; but the unfortunate thing is that they are a nation of carnivorous sheep.
I should like to say something about the question of the re-unification of Germany, which was touched upon in yesterday's debate. I feel it would be asking too much of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who is to reply, to say much about this subject, especially as I have not given him notice that I was going to raise it; but he is always, in my experience, most courteous and helpful, and

1895
if he can say something on the subject of the re-unification of Germany I feel it would be helpful to many noble Lords. I read the Press statement which was issued after Dr. Adenauer visited Washington. It ran as follows:
"The demand for a reunited Germany is viewed by us as the legitimate demand of the German people. We are convinced of the necessity of continued efforts toward this goal and are agreed that such efforts will be made by the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany together with the United Kingdom and France."
That reads very pleasantly, but on analysis it is revealed to be completely academic. There is nothing objective whatever in that joint statement, and the London Agreements contain nothing to bring reunification nearer.
I think the matter is particularly important, because I take it that the arrangements in the Bonn Convention still hold, that in the event of Germany being reunited she would then be free to develop her national armaments without any of these considerable controls about which we heard yesterday. I wonder whether anyone really believes that Germany can be reunited by strokes of the pen, or by free elections in Eastern Germany. I believe that that is impossible, and I imagine that nobody knows the impossibility of it more clearly than the West German Government. I believe that reunification is dead for as far as we can see, I believe that Dr. Adenauer must know that that is so, and that it is not Russia's refusal of free elections which now keeps the two Germanies apart. Year by year, East and West Germany have been steadily growing further and further apart, and at this moment one might just as well talk about reuniting the old Austro-Hungarian Empire as of reuniting East and West Germany as parts of the same country which are being forcibly kept apart.
I do not feel that anyone can think any longer in terms of a single German people. It is more realistic and accurate to think in terms of two distinct German peoples, who are getting along quite tolerably in independence of each other, but with marked features of dissimilarity. Western Germany to-day more or less resembles pre-war Germany. Her reconstruction has taken part along traditional
1896
lines; but East Germany has been developing quite differently. Life there has changed in all its aspects. In particular, the way of thinking has altered. The young generation in East Germany know nothing about pre-war Germany. The boys and girls of the young generation have been brain-washed. They belong to a post-revolution race, and if they were to visit West Germany they would find there a way of life alien to their way of living; alien, also, to their way of thinking, and alien to the way of life to which they have now grown accustomed. They have received an education which sets them apart from West Germany. They may grumble about this and that, as we all grumble about the conditions under which we live, but I do not think they grumble fundamentally about the East German way of life, which they now regard as normal and largely satisfactory.
Economically, also, East Germany has become independent of West Germany: new industries have been established, new sources of raw materials have been developed, and new export markets have been searched out. Admittedly, East Germany is not as prosperous as West Germany, but the East German economy more or less suffices for the 19 million people there, who have no acquaintance at all with life in West Germany. The conditions of life for the East Germans are different from what they were. Three or four years ago they were a poverty-stricken, half-starved, pathetic people. To-day, there is good employment, if not indeed, full employment—in fact, I have been told that there is even a shortage of manpower. The economic situation has greatly improved; controls and restrictions are being lifted or modified; rationing grows less; there are more goods in the shop windows; prices have come into fair relation with wages—in some cases, indeed, prices compare favourably with those in West Germany. For instance, I am told that in the State restaurants in East Germany prices are lower than those in West Germany. The upheavals of land reform are tending to settle down. The farmers, like all farmers, grumble and are not content; but it is noticeable that there is no longer the flow of refugees from the land in East Germany into West Germany. As regards

1897
the position of a worker, again my information is that if he can get a three-or four-roomed flat (and building is proceeding apace in East Germany, where the housing situation is rapidly improving, which, of course, improves morale) he will pay a rent of £5 or £6 a month for it.
There is a great deal of evidence to show that conditions are improving considerably and with fair speed in East Germany—I believe that there is even a little private enterprise to be found there nowadays. If we take the vital matter of iron and steel, a new industry has sprung up there. They are producing pig-iron at the rate of 500,000 tons a year and steel at the rate of 250,000 tons a year. I agree that they are small quantities, but it is a beginning. The ore comes in from the Soviet Union, and the coke comes in from the Donets basin—and that industry will go ahead. It is also noticeable that so great now is the separation between East and West Germany that the Russians evidently feel able to ease, to some extent, the ban on contact between East and West, because they know that such contacts no longer resemble those normally prevailing between people of the same race. I hear, also, that there is little interest in East Germany in politics, and that politicians are distrusted. The East Germans at present are thinking in terms of themselves. They dislike Russia and the Communists, and they consider that West Germany did very little to help them in the time of their need and distress. That view modifies their feelings about West Germany. If all these things are true, I feel it is evidence on the side of those who say that if reunification were to come about at the moment it would be enforced and not voluntary: it would mean an economic and social unheaval in both West and East Germany, which neither wants.
To turn for a moment to another aspect of this matter, I think that France would have this fact to consider about reunification. As I understand it, a reunified Germany would be free to create her own national armed forces, to which East Germany would bring an army and air force of, together, 300,000 men. If France feels that German rearmament is safe because the controls provided include a ban upon the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I can find nothing in the London Agreements to prevent such
1898
weapons from being given to Germany. It seems to me that this is the thin end of the wedge, because—as we know from Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery and, in fact, from others—all N.A.T.O. planning is based on the employment of nuclear weapons. Lord Montgomery has said in the most clear and candid terms that that is what they are doing, and that they certainly are planning to use nuclear weapons should the need arise. If German divisions are to be integrated into the N.A.T.O. Forces, then Germany must be given such knowledge of, and training in, nuclear weapons as has to be given to the other member States of N.A.T.O. I feel that these are matters which France, with her apprehensiveness about German rearmament, has to take very carefully into consideration. About this Armaments Control Agency, history shows quite conclusively that a nation such as Germany which sets its mind to "diddling" such an Agency always manages to do it; and it is simply wishful thinking to imagine that West Germany, once she has regained her independence, and whether she unites with East Germany or not, will not, little by little, create the forces that she wants and arm them as she pleases.
That is all I want to say on the subject of reunification, but I should like to conclude with two remarks which have nothing to do with that particular subject. I noticed only this morning that that well-known and able commentator, Mr. Sulzberger, in an article on the London Agreements said this:
"It is surely time that normal customs of diplomacy be resumed. The post-war trend towards diplomacy by conference, diplomacy by loudspeaker diplomacy by insult has been hysterical."
He pleads very strongly, as I have said, for a return to the normal customs of diplomacy. I venture to say how strongly I agree with Mr. Sulzberger there. I think the one great valid criticism of flying is that it has enabled Ministers, statesmen and other such people to "flick" about the world far too much. I believe that it would be far better if they stayed at home more and left the conduct of diplomacy in the hands in which it was efficiently conducted in the past—those of our Ambassadors and our representatives abroad. I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will in future exercise what restraint they can

1899
upon these hectic methods of carrying on diplomacy to which Mr. Sulzberger has referred. The last thing I wish to say is this. In this matter of the London Agreements, I wish the Foreign Secretary most sincerely what I am sure is at this moment his own dearest wish: that the honour, the praise and the congratulation which he has received may be proved by time to be even less than his deserts, and that his immense, unselfish labours may work out in terms of greater security for Europe.
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, although I was unavoidably prevented from being here yesterday, I hope I may be allowed to support my noble Leader's Resolution in a few words from the standpoint of defence. That, I am afraid, will prevent my following the noble Lord, Lord Winster, except in the last words which he spoke, which, of course, I heartily echo. I suppose it would be true to say that neither of these White Papers nor any Treaties of this kind can be of real, practical value unless the state of affairs for which they provide can be defended against the dangers which are envisaged.
I do not think it is too much to say that it has been a weakness up to now in the whole N.A.T.O. position that, whereas the Treaties themselves were thoroughly sound and admirable, they have not been matched by defence measures of equal strength. I have always felt that we could never match our defence measures to the Treaties unless the Western Powers were able to avail themselves of German territory and German manpower. We all realise that this has brought us to a very difficult subject. No one finds it easy to think kindly of the proposals made in the White Papers if, at the same time, we think of the two great wars and of war crimes. One has to go a little further back into history to recollect that, whatever may have been the experience of the 20th century, in the 18th century it was common for British and German troops to fight alongside each other, as the battle honours of many of our regiments show. From another point of view, no one who can think as far back as even 1939 or 1940 likes the idea of starting one's defensive arrangements with a front line on the Dutch and Belgian frontiers.
1900
That made no sense last time, and would make even less sense this time. But although those may be the lessons from the past, it does not in the least follow that the past will be the right guide to the future. In some respects, Yes, and in other respects, no doubt, No.
May I dwell for a moment on this question of where is the Eastern boundary of Western defence? We are in the same position as we were in 1940—the line is on the Dutch and Belgian frontiers. Even if front lines have not the same strategic meaning now as they had then, the position is really much the same. I think the position is much the same whether we are forced to think only of Western Germany, or whether it were possible to think of a re-unified Germany which, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has just said, is not possible at all. At any rate, from about 1947, when it was clear that the Russians were going to refuse Marshall Aid and that the Iron Curtain was coming down, we have in fact been faced with this choice of evils—if you like to put it so in respect of Germany—which the White Papers and the Nine-Power Agreement have now gone so far to resolve. We have either at this point to set our face against German rearmament (if we do that we have to take all the risks of an Iron Curtain on the Dutch frontier, and of air bases behind it) or we have to take what I suppose is a calculated risk—namely, to aim at a friendly Western Germany, at the same time accepting the risk of a reversion to Prussian or to Nazi ways.
I quite agree with what I read in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that it is far too early to express optimism on the subject. It is far too early to express anything of that sort, particularly for anyone who has read that striking book The Nemesis of Power. But, to my mind, it is not really a question of optimism or pessimism; it is a question of whether we have here the possibility of something better. It is clear to me that without German rearmament we have the possibility only of confusion and disaster. With German rearmament we have a possibility of something better, and that is a possibility that Dr. Adenauer has brought much nearer to a probability than ever I thought was possible.

1901
We then came to E.D.C. and we supported E.D.C., although, quite rightly, we reserved our own position under N.A.T.O. That is the position to which we have now come. But, whatever may be in the White Papers which we are to approve this afternoon, I consider that ever since the days of S.H.A.E.F. and General Eisenhower's early command we have been morally committed to making very much the same contribution as is now being laid down in the White Paper, in Section 3 of the Final Act and on page 37 of the Protocol. The change, the abandonment of E.D.C., does not affect the position of the United Kingdom a great deal so far as our commitments go, because, as I say, I think they have been morally there the whole time. What it does is to provide a much sounder military organisation, in that all the forces are now placed under the command of the Supreme Commander in Europe. There is a logical system of command, which it is always just as well to have if you are trying to make a defensive plan; and there is a control of supply, armaments, ammunition, transport, petrol and all those things which are not only necessary for a proper unified command but are bound, in themselves, to provide as much safeguard as anybody can provide at this stage against the dangers which some people see in German rearmament. Furthermore, that plan means that research into armaments is under proper control. So long as the German Agreement stands, that means that research into atomic energy will be for civilian purposes only.
So we get to a position where we are taking this calculated risk and are hoping to organise Western defence, including German rearmament, in what is described in the Nine Power Act as an atmosphere of "growing friendship." Those two words are very important, because, unless we thought that we could develop these plans in an atmosphere of growing friendship, it would be completely wrong and false to take the steps which we are taking now. That development of growing friendship, to my mind, is one of the prime necessities if these plans are to develop on the lines that we wish—growing integration of forces and growing common training on N.A.T.O. lines. A good deal has been done, with Germany outside, in last year's inter-Allied exercise "Battle Royal" in Germany, but we
1902
shall have to go a great deal further than that, and the Germans will have to come into the atmosphere which those who saw "Battle Royal" tell me was created there. We shall have to be especially careful and far-sighted about the arrangements for the training of leaders and specialists.
The Protocol refers to four divisions and the Second Tactical Air Force. Seeing that we are bound to be on the brink of far-reaching changes in the organisation of defensive forces, both land and air, and no doubt sea, that expression "four divisions and the Second T.A.F." sounds perhaps a little old-fashioned; its meaning may have changed very much in a year's time or in two years' time. I do not know; but what is quite clear is that the shape of our contribution to Western defence and the shape of the contribution of every other nation will develop rapidly, and must do so, in the next few years, if it is to be of any defensive value against an aggressor from the East. I will leave that question there, because this is not the time when we should go at any length into the future of defence organisation in the West or anywhere else. I do not regard the future with such alarm as perhaps I might. I feel we have now a defence plan which includes all the Western nations whose inclusion is demanded by geography; and geography is something which we cannot alter and which we have to accept. It would not be true to say that our forces are yet fully adequate to the task which they have to do, but, at any rate, the White Papers give a sound basis on which to build and a sound organisation for command that is likely to work.
I do not think we can complete the picture for this country unless we take a short look at our other commitments as a member of the British Commonwealth. To start with, our home forces are not under N.A.T.O., and strategically it is extremely difficult—in fact, I think it is impossible—to separate the considerations affecting our home defence, which includes our civil defence and the use of our reserve forces in this country, from what is happening in Germany. If the White Papers do not provide for those two things to be studied together, common sense, I am sure, does provide for it. We shall find that those forces which before the First World War or the Second World War were at Aldershot or

1903
on Salisbury Plain will now be in Europe. It may easily turn out that that is a better place to station them, having regard to atomic warfare and other things. In any case, apart from the South African War, there have been few times when Europe was not the place for which we should hold our reserves. We have done so for the last fifty or sixty years and we have seldom found the need to send more than a small part of our free reserves to any other part of the world. So there again we are reaching a situation which is nothing new.
What, then, of the position of the other Commonwealth countries? We have the South-East Asian Treaty and we have the A.N.Z.U.S. Pact; but all these Treaties and Pacts really stem from the same source. They are all Treaties made in different regions of the world to take care of the same broad danger. I do not see for a moment how our commitment to keep these four divisions and the Second T.A.F. in Germany really conflicts with our obligations in other directions as a member of the Commonwealth, provided, of course, that we have enough troops under our own command to deal with emergency operations such as those we have had to deal with in Malaya and Kenya and which may arise again, though I hope they will not. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, I think made the same point at the beginning of his speech, and I agree with him. Canada is a party to these arrangements, and therefore she is in a different position from, shall we say, Australia and New Zealand. So I see no practical danger in any of these arrangements. In fact, one could put it the other way and say that these arrangements are completely complementary to S.E.A.T.O. and to A.N.Z.U.S. in their own spheres of the world.
As to cost, I doubt whether anybody who thought for a moment could say it was likely to be a sound basis for the Europe of the future that we should go on having our Army paid for by the Germans. I feel that if we attempted to keep up that state of affairs it would put off the day when a grand design like this could be accomplished. If there is to be any excess cost to this country in such arrangements it will be far outbalanced by the result, which I think will be a
1904
sound defence organisation, which can be built up (I hope not too slowly) to provide the strategical support which every diplomatic arrangement, however good, must surely need. Therefore, from the defence point of view, there should be nothing but relief that we have reached the diplomatic position to which we have now come.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, unhappily it falls to my lot to be the last speaker on this subject from this side of the House. I say "unhappily," as it is only because my noble friend Lord Henderson is unwell that he is not able to take his proper part in this debate, in which his peculiar knowledge, gained from his Foreign Office experience in connection with the administration of affairs in Germany, would have been invaluable. It is a great loss to us to be without him to-day. Yesterday we had a remarkably good debate, and I felt that the longer I sat and listened the more humble I ought to be. I just could not take notes; I sat and listened. Except for two short parts of two speeches which were made during my absence, I heard all that was said and sat the whole time in the Chamber. One could not help but feel that one was up against very great issues, which one ought to approach in the most sincere manner possible. I thought these things over and remembered my experiences in Opposition in the years from 1931 to 1940, and all the great events which occurred then; and when I heard so many almost similar problems being debated the thought that struck me most was one that came to me first as a very young man, when reading Emerson's Essays—that we were once again at the hardest task in the world. I felt that very much yesterday. Emerson said:
"What is the hardest task in the world? To think, I would put myself in the attitude to look in the eye an abstract truth, and I cannot. I blench and I withdraw on this way and that. I seem to know what he meant who said 'No man can see God face to face and live.'"
We are dealing with such matters in the Treaties and Agreements that we have before us to-day, and the greatest consideration is required for what is the truth, as far as we can possibly find it out, before we come to our final criticisms or our final decisions.

1905
The debate was opened by the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council in his usual able and charming manner, and I have no criticism to offer of his brief presentation of the case to the House. I should like, however, to refer to one short passage in it, in which he expressed his view that the Brussels Treaty was brought in to protect Western Europe against a resurgent Germany. Whilst there is a background which would perhaps give some support to that impression, might I say to the noble Marquess, as I was connected directly with it, in that I signed with Ernest Bevin the Treaty of Dunkirk in 1947 and then was consulted on the defence aspects of the Brussels Treaty, that even before the Dunkirk Treaty in 1947 we were not, in the main, considering a resurgent Germany—at least not a resurgent Germany for a great many years to come. But there were immediate dangers to be faced if we were even to begin to approach such a process of stiffening in Western Europe as would give some hope of collective resistance to aggression.
I have said this before, but perhaps it is worth saying again. I remember that after about two and a half months of discussions in the Paris Peace Conference in 1946, a leading Frenchman said to me, "It is all very well for you, A.V., to talk as you are talking now, but tell me what is to prevent the Russian tanks from being in France in five to six days?" That was in 1946, nearly two years before the Brussels Treaty was signed. Anybody who went through that nightmare of discussions all day and very often all night for three and a half months could have few illusions about the direction in which a good deal of the Communist thought of the world was not merely going but had already gone. We must not lose sight of that fact.
I thought my noble and learned Leader yesterday made an excellent presentation of both the pros and the cons of the situation with which these agreements seek to deal, and I find myself very much in agreement with what he said. I have a great affection for my old friend, Lord Stansgate. We have perhaps more opinions in common than most. But I really could not understand why, in some of his comments yesterday, such a special attack was made upon the points of view
1906
expressed by our noble and learned Leader in this House. My noble friend, Lord Stansgate, was full of vigour and had plenty of scorn for the references made by the Leader of the Opposition here to the Navy and the Army; and Lord Stansgate commented on the fact that the noble and learned Earl had made no reference to the Royal Air Force. That was not quite a fair comment, because my noble and learned friend was referring to the Victorian period in which he had been brought up, and to the facts in regard to the main arms of defence in the Navy and the Army. He was not saying that at the present time the high maintenance and expansion of the Air Force should not be continued, but that he did not think that we had done quite enough in the naval direction. That is all he really said yesterday, and it hardly merited the sharp wrath which seemed to be behind the particular comment of my noble friend.
Then, I was rather struck with Lord Stansgate's reference to the comments made by my noble and learned Leader about the twelve divisions of German troops which may be added to the general Western Allied strength as a result of these Agreements. I wrote down what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said—namely, that it would not make a snap of the fingers difference to the balance of power as between the atomic powers, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Well, I must say that I beg to differ very sharply from that view. Before I say why, the question springs to my mind right away: if my noble friend is right, why is Mr. Molotov so upset about it? That is the extraordinary thing. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, speaking along the same lines as my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the twelve divisions from Germany are so illusory, how illusory must be our four; and yet how valuable those four divisions have been regarded by every one of the Western Allies with whom we have proceeded along the road to these Agreements! The question of whether or not the twelve German divisions would mean any difference in the balance of strength is perhaps best commented upon by Mr. Molotov's announcement. He says, "If you ratify these Agreements"—and, as my noble Leader said yesterday, everything depends on whether or not all the

1907
signatories ratify—"we will call a conference and go on with whoever may say they will come in." For what purpose? In order to strengthen still further the military security in Europe from their point of view. So he must feel that the effect of these Agreements will bring much added strength to the balance of power to which my noble friend referred yesterday.
LORD WINSTER: Mr. Molotov may be thinking more about the political consequences, rather than of military considerations with these Agreements.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My noble friend Lord Winster seems to agree very closely with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in this matter, and I will say a word about that. But I would observe that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in his speech, though he agreed with a number of points made by Lord Stansgate, yet came to a completely opposite conclusion. He was certain in his mind that there was no possibility of ever getting a united Germany; for him, the division in Germany was final and complete. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the other hand, pointed out in his speech how widespread and deep is the feeling throughout Germany in favour of attaining a unified Germany. He indicated, by certain passages in his speech, that that feeling must be taken into account and that our action may do something to prevent that unification.
My noble friend Lord Winster spoke of there being possibly a political reaction to these Agreements. I have had a great deal of experience of Mr. Molotov in personal negotiations, and in matters purely of defence, not in the course of ordinary Foreign Office diplomacy. I saw a good deal of him in the Paris Peace Conference and on other occasions, and I am sure that he takes political account of such things. The question of security is bound to affect a country's political views—it certainly does with Russia. I firmly believe that the Russians are concerned lest the gathering strength represented by a set of Agreements like this may make it permanently impossible for the U.S.S.R. to achieve the task which that country has set itself—
1908
that of splitting the growing unity of the West. On the other hand, the Russians may be looking at this development in the light of events there now, judging by reports of what has been happening inside Russia, even within the last ten days. They may be faced with so much dissension at home that they are forced to see what can be done about it. We hear that there has been a widespread purge within the past few days, with wholesale dismissals from the Civil Service, with transfers of ordinary civil servants to the logging camps of Siberia or into agriculture and industry. All that hardly seems to indicate that everything is for the best in the best of all worlds.
My last point: I thought my noble friend Lord Winster overlooked the fact that my noble Leader, in his speech, went on to refer to the fact that it was not only the growing military strength gained by the twelve divisions that was important; there was also the hope of increasing unity in Western Europe which those divisions represented; the hope of perhaps doing something positive to bring to an end the long-standing bitterness between France and Germany. I agree with my noble Leader that one would be prepared to pay a fairly high price to achieve that end. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate feels so deeply on this question of German rearmament, I should perhaps say something more to him. He feels that it will not lead to the kind of unity in Germany that would reach the goal he himself has set in his mind. But during all the post-war years, until quite recently, I have been very fixed in my fears as to what the rearmament of Germany would mean. Unless there are proper controls, people are bound to have fears as to what will eventuate from that step.
The turning point in my mind, which took me finally and completely in the direction referred to by the last speaker on the other side of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was my reading of the actual documents and papers presented at the Berlin Conference. As I listened to the case against the Treaty put by my noble friend yesterday, I could not help saying to myself "I wonder whether he has studied the papers put into Berlin by the Russian Government." Their plan then was certainly not to refrain from rearming

1909
Germany: they were prepared to see Germany rearmed, but rearmed on a basis different from that which will come about if Western Germany is integrated into the Allied forces of the West. In that way we should have seen a German rearmament without any of the controls that we seek to set up. I am not arguing that these are bound to be effective controls, but at least we are seeking to establish them. The Russian way would have meant rearming Germany straight away, with all the effect of this structure of a full German Staff, free to develop their own primary organisation of such forces in such manner as they desired for themselves.
I am sorry to keep on about the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but he will understand that I do not want such heresies to remain in his mind. I would like to pluck him like a brand from the burning and see that he comes to a right point of view. The noble Viscount yesterday referred to the fact that it was strange that none of us on this side of the House had referred to the View of the Social Democrats in Germany. I thought that point was fully dealt with by our Leader in another place last week—and dealt with most effectively. I would ask my noble friend, if opposition to the agreements at the moment is so very important with regard to the German Social Democrats, what of the views of Social Democrats in France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy? I will not say that all have always favoured, but certainly they now favour the basis of the Agreements that we are considering in this Motion to-day.
When I look back over the history of Socialist international conferences (and I can go back even beyond my noble friend's experience) I should say that, while we in this country have never regarded the German Social Democrats with anything but kind affection, we have not always taken them to be the best guide on policy of this kind. I should have thought, indeed, that our experience of the contribution of the German Social Democrats, which had so much to do with the break-up of the Weimar Republic after the First World War, offered at least a major warning to us of what may lie ahead. One other word before I leave this topic. The German Social Democrats had a big conference this year, and Herr Ollenhauer said this:
1910
"Nor does our rejection of the E.D.C. signify refusal of a military contribution to the defence of the free world in all circumstances so long as Germany remains divided."
That, I think, was a very important statement by the leader of the Social Democrats, even though they have not come to full agreement with ourselves about the matter. I apologise to the House for having had to clear these things up as between the noble Viscount. Lord Stansgate, and myself, and I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time. I will try to be brief in dealing with one or two other matters to which I wish to refer.
I listened yesterday to the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, who spoke in his usual calm and thoughtful way. I do not want to mention anything of what he said, except that very effective part of his speech in which he referred to the belief held by some people that foreign policy and the practice of diplomacy necessarily mean the choice between evils. I do not think any of us who has had responsibility for some length of time in the past can ever have been far away from having, at some time or other, to deal with the problem of which is the lesser of two evils. The noble Earl will forgive me if I say to him that one of the most difficult choices his Government had to make before the war was in connection with a matter which led to the visit by representatives of the Opposition in another place—of which I was a member—on the night before Mr.Chamberlain was to fly to Bad Godesburg. I would recall it to the noble Earl's memory. I would recall it for the sake of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, because I do not think he will then feel that I am quite so much at variance, with all his radical ideas as he might have believed.
Mr. Chamberlain was going to fly to Bad Godesburg. We saw nothing but disaster in his doing so. Our view, which we stressed, was that when he went to Bad Godesburg Hitler would put up his price—as in fact he did. We said that if Mr. Chamberlain was going to leave this country to fly somewhere, the best place for him to fly to was not Bad Godesburg but Moscow; but the choice had to be made, and the Government made their choice. They, no doubt, thought that they were choosing the lesser of two evils. And that is the position:

1911
it is an election of the risk which has to be taken. With all the rest of the speech of the noble Earl, I agree. The choice which we have to-day to make is that of the lesser evil, and I have no doubt which is the lesser evil. We have to choose whether to approve the Agreements or, as some people have been advocating so eloquently, to do nothing until (as my noble friend Lord Archibald said) we have reached a greater measure of common ground between ourselves and the Soviet? What happens in the meantime? Is it possible to maintain without stress or break the present status quo in Western Germany, while matters remain the same in Eastern Germany? I can see no answer from that point of view at all. That is one of the main reasons why I feel that I must approve the action proposed by the Government.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, who spoke to us yesterday, on his maiden speech. I thought it was an excellent one. I wish that I had more time left to comment upon it. Certainly in his final words he seemed to me to state the position clearly. If he will not mind my doing so, to satisfy myself I would just add this to what he said: half of Europe united and free is better than no European unity at all in face of the danger of losing freedom altogether. So the noble Lord will see that we are completely at one in what he said in his peroration yesterday evening.
Now I should like to refer briefly to the question of the cost of this Agreement. I was rather unhappy about the debate on this subject in another place. I thought that the case put by my right honourable friend Mr. Hugh Gaitskell was very reasonable, effective and searching, and none of us seems to have been completely satisfied with the answer made on that occasion by the present Minister of Defence. I am, to say the least, a little unhappy about it. I do not think it is any answer to say that the forces which we are to have in Europe would cost just as much if we had them at home: I do not think they would. I think that if they are not tied to the extra commitments in Germany at any time, there are ways and means of economy which become open to the military authorities. But I am not arguing upon that aspect. I am arguing that
1912
there is such a change occasioned in the financial burden falling upon this country for our continuing maintenance of the four divisions, and the other ancillary British forces required for the purposes of the Agreement in that country, that unless we are very careful, we shall be landed in a position in which, compared with some of the other partners in this particular Alliance, Western Union, as well as the other nations within N.A.T.O., we shall be bearing far more than our fair share of the burden—which means, of course, a heavier burden on the British taxpayer.
On the question of National Service I speak with feeling, for I was the Minister responsible for introducing it in peace time in another place. There is a good deal of feeling in the country about the length of service now required. My own view is that, while the strength of the Forces concerned remains what it is at present, we have not yet arrived at the stage where we are in a position to reduce the length of service. I do say, however, that it is very unfair on parents and families in this country generally, that we should have to bear the burden of two years' National Service while other nations which are our partners in the Agreement do not bear an equal burden. The same thought must come to our mind with regard to the apportionment of costs.
After listening to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, as to what would be the possible changes in shape, form, organisation, equipment and objectives of the forces on the Continent in the future I imagine that there is likely to be heavy and increasing expenditure. Indeed, only yesterday, in one more of those declarations by the Supreme Commander of S.H.A.P.E., I noticed that he said (I do not know where he got his figures from) that the Russian strength in the air was something over 9,000 machines, mostly jet fighters. And he went on to say that we should require to increase our strength. I wish that when military commanders make use of figures like these they would say where they obtain them. Moreover, I am really getting sick to death of these big pronouncements being made by military commanders and not, as they ought to be, by the proper representatives of the responsible Governments. But it serves to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of that part of the speech of the noble

1913
Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, which related to the possible increase in cost. I think it has been well said in another place that we ought to be considering what line we should take at the Council of N.A.T.O., as well as at whatever Council may be set up for Western Union, to see that every country concerned bears its legitimate and proper portion of the cost of this system of collective defence into which we are proposing to enter.
The other thing I would say about the Agreements is that there is a widespread dubiety about the system of controls. In another maiden speech of great power made yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, ventured to express what he thought was neither a bias of hope nor a bias of fear, and I think his speech showed fairly clearly that he shared the doubts in the minds of many other people about whether the controls to be set up by the Agreements are really going to be effective. Two speeches from above the gangway on this side of the House, by the noble Lords, Lord Layton and Lord Grantchester, also showed this widespread doubt about the effectiveness of the control. I cannot speak on the question of checking supplies, ammunition and the rest like the noble Lord, Lord Layton, with his long experience at the Ministry of Supply, but I know a little about it, and I should have thought that we needed a great deal more clarity from the Government before there was general ratification, so that we might understand exactly how far we were committed to a control which was effective and which safeguarded our interest, as well as the interests of everybody else, and which would clearly be some guarantee against any regression of the other side.
I come to my last point, which I am tempted to make because of what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester said yesterday, and I make it in the most humble way I can. The right reverend Prelate declared (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 189, cols. 1874–5):
"… the integration of Germany with the Western Allies provides the necessary foundation of stability, and a common purpose in the West, which is the only basis … for seeking an understanding with the East."
I want my noble friends who may have had a few arguments with me this afternoon to believe me sincerely when I say
1914
that I am very anxious to have an understanding with the East. I am shocked at the idea in the Molotov statement to Pravda which says in advance that if we ratify these Agreements, then there is no value in any subsequent negotiations. I sincerely want there to be negotiations, and effective ones, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester that the most effective change that could possibly be imagined at the present time is a change of a spiritual kind. I do not know whether other noble Lords listened to that part of his speech in which he made reference to the work of the German Evangelical Church in forming one, at least, if not more, of the bridges linking West and East Germany which have been mentioned from time to time. I am very glad to hear that.
The right reverend Prelate said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 189, col. 1875):
… the German Evangelical Church is the one corporate body which unites both East and West."
And he spoke of a great conference, a Kirchentag at Leipzig recently of a great number of representatives both from the East and West German Protestant Churches. Could we not help in that direction? The right reverend Prelate said he hoped that the Churches would be able to help. After all, those of us who have been through all kinds of political experiences have to sit down very often and acknowledge our failure—not a personal failure entirely, but often due to collective policy, to Party and the like—and it does us good sometimes to study history a little and see what past experience has been. I would say, although I am sure it is only a generalisation and a very rough one, that the greatest days of this country were when we had an efficient lead under a Protestant policy. Nobody could have been more moved than I was two years ago, as I should have been at any other time in similar circumstances, to see the Lord Chancellor of your Lordships' House approach the Throne on his knee, to present to the new Sovereign the solemn Declaration to maintain the Protestant Faith before the new Sovereign could open her first Parliament.
When we hear from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester of what the German Evangelical Church are

1915
already doing, apparently as between East and West, to bring about good feeling and communion, I should like to think that when we are dealing with these matters we shall be pursuing the same kind of anxious endeavour to raise the tone and continuity of effort of our spiritual life here. I do not believe that there is going to be any cure for the problems that man has set for himself when, as now, he is so near the Creator in handling all the concomitants of the earth but has neither justice nor the integrity of God to know how to handle them properly. Unless we can have that spiritual approach, I do not believe we shall ever reach in our time, or in our children's time, the kind of progress towards eternal peace that we all so much desire. I approve of the Agreements.
3.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the ratification of the various Agreements entered into in Paris is, of course, an Executive act, but in a matter of this importance it is obvious that any Government would desire, before carrying out the final stage of ratification, to secure the express support of Parliament; and, by Parliament, I mean both Houses of Parliament. It is in those circumstances that this Resolution standing in the name of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has come to be debated in your Lordships' House. If I may say so, the quality of the speeches to which we have listened yesterday and to-day evidences the wisdom of any Government in consulting the opinion of your Lordships on a matter of this moment. In addition to speeches from noble Lords with whose performances we are more familiar, we have had admirable maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh and Lord Russell of Liverpool, speeches instructed and impressive, with all the added weight behind them of the speakers' own personal and recent experience of two of the countries vitally concerned in the whole of these arrangements. On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House and certainly on my own behalf, I would add how much we regret the absence from this debate of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, whose contributions for many years past to these discussions
1916
of foreign affairs have been so moderate, so wise and so appealing to all sides of the House, that we particularly regret his absence on an occasion of this importance.
Her Majesty's Government are grateful for the very substantial measure of support for these Agreements which they have received from Members of your Lordships' House in the course of this debate. There have been signs of opposition from one or two noble Lords but, on the whole, even if there have been reservations—and reservations are not really surprising in a matter of this range and complexity—those who have expressed uncertainty on some points have given their general support to the Resolution of my noble friend. I would also express to noble Lords on all sides of the House appreciation for what has been said about the part which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has played in enabling these Agreements which we are now discussing to be reached.
It is never an easy task to wind up a debate of some length, although I admit it is somewhat less onerous if there has been a break in the debate. This subject has been so widely and fully discussed, both inside and outside Parliament, that I should not feel justified in taking up a great deal of your Lordships' time; but in the course of the debate a number of specific questions have been put to me which I should like to answer, so far as my competence permits, as I have always endeavoured to answer questions raised by your Lordships. Then, having done that, I should like to deal briefly with the major arguments which have been raised against the Treaties which this Resolution desires to approve. Much of the ground I proposed to cover in my speech has already been most helpfully covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. He took up a number of points which it would otherwise have fallen to me to take up, and dealt with them so effectively that I can omit them. May I then attempt to deal with these specific questions, if that be a convenient method of proceeding?
The first question which arose in the course of the debate was the inquiry made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, as to what would be the position if one of the signatories failed

1917
to ratify the Agreements we are discussing. The position as he put it was perfectly correct: the Agreements stand or fall by the assent of all. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in the course of his speech asked what my noble friend meant when he said that we should have to pay for our forces, whether they were in Europe or not. What I take my noble friend to have meant was no more and no less than this—and in it, surely, he was perfectly correct. So long as we have our forces in Germany we have really two different types of expenditure: we have capital expenditure, which has to be spent on barracks and accommodation of various kinds; and we have a certain measure of running costs. Whether the troops are in Germany, in England or anywhere else, we have throughout carried the burden of paying them and rationing them. That cost has not fallen upon the Germans.
The German contribution has been devoted to the capital cost—the building of living accommodation and storage accommodation; the provision of signal communications; the cost of moving troops and freight, and, to a substantial extent, the supply of labour force, the supplement to the R.E.M.E. strength, and so forth. If we brought the troops back to this country, or sent them elsewhere than Germany, we should still have to meet the costs of their normal pay, of their rationing and their clothing. That. I believe, is what my noble friend meant when he said that we should have to pay for our forces whether they were in Europe or not. But there do remain what have come to be called support costs, which are the provisions under the various heads I have specified which Germany has been making; and some measure of those costs, though not necessarily all, will in the future have to be borne by this country. But that was going to happen at some moment in any case, unless we contemplated that the Germans would be prepared to continue paying the costs of Occupation into the indefinite future.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, also asked, in a slight geographical divergence from Germany, what we were going to do to reassure Czechoslovakia and Poland about their frontiers. I cannot help thinking that the noble Viscount, in putting those questions and suggesting that there might come a moment when
1918
the Germans would turn upon Czechoslovakia or upon Poland, had an erroneous conception of what the position was going to be. He seemed to think that if we entered into these Agreements with Germany, and enabled Germany to produce a certain number of troops, we were then going to form a protective screen round Germany and let her go for anybody she wanted to go for. But that is not the basis of this arrangement at all. The basis of this arrangement is that all who come into it integrate their forces into it; they become even partners in the organisation which is set up; and the Germans are not free to go off and carry on some armed expedition of their own. The whole of the German forces come under the control of the Supreme Allied Commander. Unless it is thought that all the members of the Council of Ministers of N.A.T.O. are going to approve of Germany's assaulting the frontiers of Poland, or assaulting the frontiers of Czechoslovakia, and that the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe is going to lend himself to a venture of that kind, the situation which the noble Viscount was pressing upon us surely could not possibly arise. I think that is the answer to the point that he was then putting. I will deal later with some of the other things which he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Layton, asked me a certain number of questions which I should perhaps have endeavoured to answer in the chronological order in which the speeches were made. The first point he raised was whether the military arrangements under the Paris Agreement were as good as those in the European Defence Community Treaty. It may be that to some people the arrangements in the European Defence Community Treaty look better than those now under consideration, but I think the advantage in appearance is largely a paper one, and that actually the arrangements which we are now seeking to adopt will prove to be the more practicable and the more workmanlike. Anyhow, the arrangements which we are now discussing have the substantial advantage over the European Defence Community, from the European angle, that they do contain these four British divisions. The noble Lord also asked a question about the inspection of factories, and whether it covered all the production of the countries who were parties to these Agreements or was in any

1919
way limited, The noble Lord will find that it is expressly provided (I think it is in Article 9 of Protocol No. 4) that the operations of the Agency will be confined to the mainland of Europe. We are not part of the mainland of Europe; nor are the French possessions in North Africa. They are excluded.
The noble Lord also asked about the proposal for an arms pool which has been somewhat ventilated, particularly by the President of the Council of Ministers in France. If the noble Lord looks at the White Paper he will find on page 51 what he wants, because this proposal was considered when these discussions were proceeding—and they were proceeding at a fairly intensive pace, as the noble Lord will realise, and there was no time to deal with everything in detail—but it was not thought possible to come to any firm conclusion about it without a good deal more investigation. A Working Party representing the various countries concerned was set up to consider the possibilities. It is due to meet in Paris on January 17. No detailed scheme has yet been received from the French or, indeed, from any other quarter.
LORD LAYTON: In regard to the previous question, what I asked was whether, in fact, the production of this country would be subject to inspection and, if so, whether it would apply only to the production of the armaments to be supplied to the troops in Europe. It seems to me a little difficult, if there is to be a check upon British armament production, to confine it to part only of the British production.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I rather hoped that I had dealt with that matter. It will concern only the actual operations of the Armaments Agency, the inspection of plants and so forth on the mainland of Europe, and the plants, depôts and forces in the United Kingdom will not be subject to inspection. I think that answers a little more fully what the noble Lord had in mind.
He also raised the question of our relations with the Council of Europe, and the same point was made, I think in slightly different terms by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who spoke later yesterday. It is, of course, quite accurate to say that the Paris Agree
1920
ments provide for a separate Assembly, a Western European Assembly. There are two reasons which make it impossible for the Council of Europe Assembly to deal with the matters which the Western European Union has to consider. The first is that the parties to Western European Union and the parties to the Council of Europe are not the same. The second is that the Council of Europe, if my recollection is right, is not in a position to consider matters of defence. As these are essentially matters of defence, it seems that we should require a separate body to deal with that, consisting of the nations which are directly concerned. It is very important, I think, that there should be a close liaison between the two bodies, and that liaison can perhaps best be maintained by making the persons who attend these two bodies as far as possible the same persons, and by having both meetings at Strasbourg and even, possibly, one following upon the other. In view of those two difficulties, I think that is the nearest one can get to a satisfactory arrangement between the two, and I see no reason why it should not be perfectly satisfactory.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked in whom was the political control of these arrangements vested. I do not think I can answer him more categorically than by quoting to him what was said by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary on the 17th of this month in the first day's debate in another place, in which he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 533 (No. 182) Col. 416]:
"All the Foreign Ministers will be members of the Western European Union. They are representatives of their countries. … It would be N.A.T.O. which would deal with that. A military event of that kind affecting Europe would be one which we, as members of N.A.T.O. … would deal with. It is the organisation which would deal with it."
He goes on a little later to say:
"It is not an organisation to take military action in the sense of moving because there has been an attack. It is an organisation, so far as it is military, to see to certain controls, A report would be made to the Council of Ministers and it would be for them to take decisions."
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also asked whether the German contribution to Western defence was a maximum and a minimum contribution. It is in effect, as has been said more than once, a ceiling. It is to that extent a maximum contribution, but that does not mean that

1921
one does not hope that they will not be able to attain to that maximum as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked about the timetable for the formation of these German contingents. There is no timetable laid down in any of the documents concerned. The two years' period which has cropped up on various occasions in the course of these discussions comes, I think, from a statement which was made by Herr Blank some little time ago, and which was subsequently published in the German official Gazette, and thereby given an official backing. But I do not think that anybody has ever clearly committed themselves to two years. It was merely an expression of opinion, and it may be found that it will take rather longer than that to achieve.
I shall attempt to deal with the other questions which came up when I turn to the general principles raised in the course of the debate.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the noble Marquess in that part of his speech going to refer to the prospects for the conference with the Russians?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Thank you.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The first of these main questions is the question, which has been raised not only here but in a good many other contexts, about the advisability of arming Germany at all. Of course, that has been gone through over and over again. As my noble friend Lord Salisbury said in opening this debate, the question is not as between arms and no arms: the question is as between controlled armament or uncontrolled armament. But this question is not, after all, a new question any more. It goes back over almost exactly four years, to the statement made by the late Mr. Bevin in another place on November 29, 1950, when he said:
"If, unhappily aggression were to take place in Europe, we are satisfied that its defence would have to take place as far east as possible and that means that Western Germany must be involved; and if Western Germany is to be defended, it seems to us only fair and reasonable that the people of Western Germany should help in their own defence."
On that basis, laid down by the late Mr. Bevin, the Government of this country,
1922
Labour and Conservative, have proceeded ever since.
It is not only we who have come forward with proposals for the arming of Germany, because, in March, 1952, amongst other documents received by us from the Soviet Government was a draft of a peace treaty for Germany, containing what they called the fundamentals of peace. Under the heading of "Military Provisions," these two items occur:
"Germany will be permitted to have its national armed forces (land, air and naval) necessary for defence of the country."—
I would ask, in parenthesis: Who says what is necessary for the defence of the country?—
"Germany is permitted to produce military materials and matériel, the quantity or types of which must not go beyond the confines of what is required for the armed forces established for Germany by the peace treaty."
Looking at that document, I wonder whether the Russians themselves always bear it in mind when they are denouncing what they call the resurgence of Nazism in Germany; because one of the paragraphs in that document lays down as an express term of the conditions of peace for Germany that:
"All former Servicemen of the German Army, including officers and generals, all former Nazis, save for those who are serving terms on convictions for crimes which they committed, must be granted civil and political rights on a par with all other German citizens for taking part in the building of a peace-loving democratic Germany."
If, in 1952, the Russians thought that these Nazi generals were capable of "taking part in the building of a peace-loving democratic Germany," then it is a little difficult to see why in these past two years they have got so excited about the possibility—and it is only a possibility—of any of them appearing in the reconstituted army of Germany. When we are considering this question of the remilitarisation of Germany, ought we not also to bear in mind that there are now up to 130,000 armed men in East Germany who have been armed with the permission, and indeed with the active encouragement, of the Russians, and not take to ourselves all the blame for the remilitarisation of anybody in Germany?
Some doubt has been cast upon the value of these twelve divisions. I think that the case for them was strongly and convincingly put by my right honourable friend the present Minister of Defence—

1923
and he was supported this afternoon by one of his predecessors, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—when he, with all the military advice which is at his disposal, said quite definitely in another place, in the course of the debate on that subject, that there was a real value to Western defence in the possession of these divisions. After all, that is the purpose of our seeking to raise them. We are not seeking to raise them as a sort of abstract gesture: frankly, it is because, in our view, they will be of value to us in building up the resistance of the West as a deterrent to any threat which might come to us from the other side of the Iron Curtain.
A certain number of doubts have been expressed as to the value and validity of the controls. The noble Viscount who spoke last asked for greater clarity in regard to controls. I think that if one looks through the White Paper it is not difficult to follow the system which is proposed. That is a system which has been carefully thought out and most deliberately devised as being the most effective that can be produced for the particular purpose. When comparisons are made between the system of controls to-day and the position in 1919, when certainly there was substantial evasion by the Germans of the controls which were then sought to be put into operation, one has perhaps to remember three things. The first is that then they were imposed upon the German people as part of the terms of the Peace Treaty; and some people, anyhow, having come to the conclusion that they were imposed on them against their will under what came to be known later as the diktat of Versailles, started out to get round these provisions. To-day the controls are not imposed; they are the result of the consent of the German Government themselves. They are voluntarily assumed, instead of being imposed from without. Moreover, we have now a different system in that after the First World War (and then only for a time) there was occupation of what may be called the fringes of Germany, whereas now we have British, American and French troops actually in Germany, and in a very much better position to see if there are evasions on a major scale in the areas where they are quartered.
1924
I suggest also that it is likely that the Germans will accept the system of controls now because the conditions imposed in 1919 were imposed on a beaten enemy because she was a beaten enemy. They were discriminatory against her because they were directed against her alone. The present conditions of control are not discriminatory because they apply equally to Germany and to all the other countries who are parties to this arrangement. That, I suggest, makes a difference psychologically to the German approach to the controls to which they are now asked to assent. The system of inspection seems to me very thorough and practicable, and, although you may be able to raise certain points of criticism and say: "This is rather weak; this may be evaded," and you may pick holes in it from one angle or another, here again we have to remember that we are entering into the whole of this arrangement as partners with the other countries concerned and that we have to assume that there is going to be fair and proper collaboration between these various countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, talked about "growing friendship," and that I think is a very valuable object to have in mind.
There is, of course, a fear in the hearts of a great many people of a resurgence of the Nazi elements in Germany. Not only is there a fear for the future, but there is a memory of the past. Few of us can, I think, be so forgiving as to pretend that time has erased from our minds all recollection of what took place in that country, or, under the agency of Hitler's Germany, in other countries, for a number of years leading up to and during the war. What we have got to consider now is: are we going to encourage that sort of spirit to re-emerge, or are we going to do what is in our power to prevent its re-emergence? If we are to prevent its re-emergence, is not the most effective way we can set about it by leading Germany back into the community of Western nations, as an equal and a fellow and a friend? I know it is not easy for some people to swallow that proposal; yet, in the wider interests of the security of Europe and the preservation of freedom in the world, it is surely something which has to be accepted if we are to have any hope for the future. The best way of strengthening any movement of the kind that we have known in

1925
the past in Germany is surely to continue in occupation of Germany and to refuse to accept her in any sense as a partner in any military undertaking. If you do that, you can hope for only one reaction.
The dominating consideration in our minds in dealing with the question of the rearmament of Germany is to bring Germany back into the Western European community. It is quite true that some of the Social Democrats in Germany are opposed to any such idea; but, still, the freely elected, and not so remotely freely elected, Government of Germany is the body which has to make the decision in this matter. Surely, that Government, which, up till now, has shown itself a good and faithful friend and partner of ours and of the other Western nations in all the undertakings which we have shared with them, cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for re-admittance to the fellowship of United Nations.
When noble Lords talk about postponing this action for five years or eight years, or whatever period it may be, what do they think Germany is going to do in the interval? What do they think the position will be when those years have expired? Do they really believe that the opportunity which exists to-day is going to be kept somewhere in cold storage for eight years, until we choose to turn to Germany again and say, "All that we have withheld from you for the past eight years, by our benevolence and graciousness we give to you now"? What do they think will be the reaction to that? What do noble Lords who have expressed fears that Germany will turn to the East feel about the possibility of delaying this change in the status of Germany for five or eight years? Do they not think that nothing could be more calculated to make Germany look East than if she knew that she had nothing to hope for from the West until another period of five or eight years had passed away, and she was left in her present inferior status? My Lords, to my mind, that is the greatest danger of all. She is much more likely to turn to the East if we of the West fail her now.
May I, in passing from these more general observations, say only a few words about the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, for the reason not that I wish
1926
in any way to cause them to blush, but merely because they were the spearhead of such attack as there was upon the Treaty. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, plunged rather more deeply into past history than I have any intention of doing at this stage. He was inclined to make the case that in the past we have always endeavoured to make things difficult for Russia—if not actually to attack Russia, nevertheless to show our hostility to Russia in every way. He went back to the times of Kolchah and Denikin, and the rest. But can he come a little nearer the present than that? Can he remember the moment in the course of the last war when the Germans turned upon Russia, and when the Prime Minister overnight pledged the resources of this country to Russia's help? Can he remember not what happened some years ago, but the amount of help that we sent into Russia through Persia, and the lengths to which we went to make that help possible—the preparation of railways, of shipping, and everything else? Can he remember, too, the voyages which were undertaken to Murmansk and the losses which we incurred, not only in ships and goods but in lives, in carrying out that attempt to give to the Russians the fullest possible succour we could out of our own strained resources? And will the noble Viscount remember that we did not get a great deal in exchange for that, except grumbling about the inadequate quantity of goods supplied and some complaints about the absence of a second front.
My Lords, the blame does not rest exclusively upon us. I should only like to say this further to the noble Viscount. I cannot let what he said about Austria pass without some comment, because the position that he was trying to depict in regard to Austria was, as he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 189, col. 1843), that
"It is imposing on the credulity of the public to pretend that by the simple signature of some document Austria can be put where she wants to be. The position of Austria is the same as that of Germany: she is one of The States in the balance, and until we get a general detente Austria cannot look for the full independence she desites."
I cannot accept the argument that the position of Austria and the position of Germany are the same in this respect. In regard to Germany, there are vigorous

1927
differences between us and the Russians about the way in which the situation should be handled, and perhaps notably over the question of free elections.
But that is not the position with regard to Austria. So far as we and those associated with us are concerned, the position with regard to Austria is perfectly clear. There was a Treaty to which the Russians had proposed certain amendments. We said at the Berlin Conference that we would accept that, with the amendments that they had proposed. We thought, perhaps rather guilelessly, that having accepted all the Treaty provisions except for one or two points upon which they made amendments, and we having accepted the amendments, they would accept. Not at all. Back we went into a situation in which there were stipulations raised for the first time about the length of time troops were to be kept in Austria and so on; and in spite of the concessions which the Austrian Foreign Minister was prepared, then and there, to make in that regard, we got no further with an Austrian treaty. It is really quite wrong and unfair, and quite inaccurate in history, to say that the Austrian and German positions are the same; that they must be so regarded and that Austria must be taken as one of the States in the balance in these negotiations, just as is Germany. There is no obstacle to the signing of a Treaty with Austria to-morrow except the Soviet refusal to sign a Treaty to which, at one point, they had fully agreed. That is the real difference between the position of Germany and the position of Austria.
I would say one more thing to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. He accused Her Majesty's Government of being disciples of Senator Knowland in the sense that they regard peaceful co-existence as merely a Trojan Horse, by which he meant presumably that they are so afraid of Communism that they are unprepared to go anywhere or any way to meet the Russians. How often must my right honourable friend and other members of Her Majesty's Government repeat that the policy of peaceful co-existence is the one which they support as having the greatest possibilities for an arrangement for the future, in order to obtain the noble Viscount's credence? It has been said time and again, and why
1928
the noble Viscount now says we regard peaceful co-existence as a Trojan Horse I find it difficult to understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, in his speech asked a rather curious question: what was it we really wanted? Did we, he asked, want the twelve divisions or did we want a united Germany? That is a completely false alternative; we want both. We want the twelve divisions for the reasons I have given, because we believe they will be valuable in strengthening the defensive power of the West. We want the unity of Germany because we believe it to be wrong that Germany should be divided, and that if the unification of Germany can be obtained certainly that is the best solution to seek. The noble Lord suggested, first, that we did not want unification, and secondly, that we considered unification was no longer a possibility. Both those premises are inaccurate.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment? I did not suggest that myself. I said there are some people who take that view and I asked what was the view of Her Majesty's Government. I did not impute any view to Her Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble Lord and apologise if I have misrepresented him, but I certainly thought, from what he said, that he regarded Her Majesty's Government as amongst those who were not very hopeful of German reunification. If that is not so I withdraw anything I may have said on that subject. What we do not accept is the notion put forward that ratification should not take place until there has been some form of prolonged negotiation and some further discussion. In our view it is essential that nothing should interfere with the process of ratification of these Agreements, for the reason not that we want them in order to block the prospect of further negotiations but that we want them in order to conduct those negotiations from a position which we have strengthened by bringing into greater unity the countries of Western Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, also called attention to a report of an interview which Mr. Molotov had given to Pravda, in which he stated that he was prepared to contemplate free elections in

1929
Germany. The noble Lord said he did not think proper attention had been given to that matter. I would only say that at the time of the Berlin Conference my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary put forward perfectly plain and specific proposals in regard to the way in which elections in Germany should be carried out. Those proposals were rejected by the Russians and no constructive or detailed alternative has ever been put forward. If this was a change of opinion on the part of Mr. Molotov and if he was prepared now to accept the proposals for elections which my right honourable friend made at Berlin, surely it was very strange to communicate that change of view to a reporter of Pravda at a time when we were being almost showered with notes from the Russians making different proposals in regard to negotiations which might take place before ratification. If so much importance was to be attached to this particular proposal one would have expected the Foreign Office to receive it, rather than the reporter of Pravda.
When we talk about free and democratic elections and the use of the ballot box, and so on, it is perhaps not un-illuminating to look back just a few weeks to the elections which took place in East Germany and to reflect that those elections took place with a poll such as would be very gratifying in by-elections or even in general elections in this country. Practically 100 per cent. of the people turned out and recorded their vote, which again, if I may make a digression, does not quite fit in with what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was telling us about the political apathy of people of East Germany. The fact remains that practically 100 per cent. of the East Germans turned out to vote, and, that election having taken place, we were informed by Communist worthies in various countries that it was a great triumph for democratic election methods and that we should regard with admiration the political consciousness of the people of East Germany. It is quite true that there were ballot boxes and that if people wished or were courageous enough to use them they could do so; but it is also true that the people were encouraged to demonstrate their admiration for the existing regime by recording their vote publicly outside the ballot room. So that anybody who did go inside to record his ballot was, by
1930
the mere fact of going into that room, a marked man. That may be an admirable method of electioneering but it does not happen to be what we regard as free democratic elections by secret ballot. The noble Lord will therefore, I feel sure, excuse us if we feel that before we leap at any offer of this kind we should have rather more details about how far the proposals which were put forward at Berlin would contain what we believe to be the indisputable characteristics of a free election, and how far those principles have now found acceptance with the Soviet Government.
But the position in regard to unification is as I have said. Certainly we believe it to be possible, and it is the prime object of our policy. I was struck by the same contradiction or inconsistency that struck the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, by which Lord Stansgate called our attention to the universal cry for unification going on in both East and West Germany, whereas Lord Winster painted us a picture of a rosy glow suffusing the whole of life in East Germany, and each country going forward quite happily by itself and wanting only to be left alone. It is clearly the view of Her Majesty's Government that the object to be sought is the reunification of Germany by peaceful means. That remains in the forefront of our policy as regards Germany. There have been many expressions of opinion in this debate as to the need for further conversations with the Russians, and from that view Her Majesty's Government certainly do not dissent. We are ready, and have always been ready, to discuss matters with the Russians, if we feel that there is, before we enter into those discussions, a real prospect of fruitful talks. Progress is not assisted by the failure of a conference. Before going into a conference one wants to know that there is at least a reasonable prospect of the results of that conference being, successful.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask a question? The noble Viscount is always so courteous on these occasions, and I know he will appreciate that we feel this is a matter which arises a very acute form, and that we hope for this conference. Yesterday President Eisenhower held a Press conference and he said that one of the first conditions was that it should be more fruitful—he used the very

1931
word which the noble Marquess has just used. Asked what that meant, he said that some measure of German rearmament must be in existence. The noble Marquess to-day, and M. Mendès-France yesterday, said that that would take two or three years. What is in our hearts—and the noble Marquess knows that we are sincere—is the fear that such a conference should be postponed and postponed. We believe that an arms race without a conference can have only one possible end.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: We have no desire to see an arms race. What we desire is that we should go into a conference with the added strength that would be given to us by the ratification of these Treaties. We want also the probability of a fruitful result, particularly on the question of free elections, on the lines that we have already suggested to the Russians. The noble Viscount, I think, is unreasonable if he expects me at this stage to say exactly upon what terms we are prepared to talk to the Russians. Certainly we are anxious to arrive at any solution which may lower still further the temperature in Europe. But in a public debate of this kind to lay down exactly what free conditions there are for actually meeting in conference, would not, I think, assist that conference to come to a valuable conclusion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we on this side are not very much divided on this one point at any rate. Our feeling is that if we are in favour of the Agreement, then as soon as ratification is finished, we should not be sluggardly, if I may use that term, in making the approach for a conference. If we have said to Russia: "We cannot go further in this matter until we have agreed." we should not in any way be ashamed of going a considerable way ourselves to initiate the conference.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not ruling out anything by what I have said. All I said was that I could not be expected to say on what exact terms we were going to talk to the Russians about these matters.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I put the definite question to the noble
1932
Marquess. President Eisenhower said that it would depend on some measure of German rearmament, which could hardly be achieved by May. What has the noble Marquess to say to that?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I have not even seen the precise statement made by President Eisenhower. All I am saying is—and I am not going to be persuaded by the noble Marquess to go further—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Thank you.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Viscount demoted me just now, so I thought that I might perhaps promote him. As I was saying, one cannot at this stage state on what conditions and at what precise moment we are going to take any steps towards opening negotiations with the Russians. That does not mean for one moment—and I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, also to bear this in mind—that we are not anxious, if we see any reasonable hope of these negotiations proving fruitful, to take those steps as soon as we properly can. That is as much as I, or anyone else, can say until the immediate future is clearer than it is to-day.
Much hangs on these Agreements, and among the important things that depend upon them is the increased possibility of better relations not only between East and West but between Germany and France. That is, in my view, a most important and most hopeful aspect of these Agreements, and that has been, I think, confirmed by speeches from both Dr. Adenauer and M. Mendeès-France in the immediate past. But as regards the main question, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, was right in saying that the point of no return with respect to these particular Agreements has now been reached. Risks there may be—risks to which attention has been called. Indeed, risks there are. But no great imaginative undertaking has ever proceeded without a substantial element of risk being involved in it. I believe that if we use these new Agreements with wise foresight and steady purpose—and that is what we shall strive to do—we can hope to use them in the best interests of the world at large, which is in the promotion of peace.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and resolved accordingly.

THE HIGHWAY CODE
5 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON rose to move, That this House takes note of the Paper entitled The Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before the House on October 26 last, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 26 thereof. The noble Lord said: I must ask your Lordships to turn from matters of the greatest international importance to something much more domestic, though not, I think, entirely unimportant. I ask your Lordships to take note of the Paper entitled the Highway Code and to approve of the revised Code contained in pages 4 to 26. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides that the Minister of Transport shall issue a code of directions for the guidance of persons using the roads and also enables him to amend, revoke and alter such codes. As your Lordships will remember, the first Highway Code was published in 1931. Since then there have been two other versions, one in 1935, which was the concern of my noble friend Lord HoreBelisha, who was then Minister of Transport and who still takes a great interest in these matters, and one in 1946 In 1951, it was suggested that the Code should be once again examined and the then Minister gave this job of examination to the Departmental Committee on Road Safety. The Committee's Report was published in 1952 and most of the recommendations have been adopted.
The status of the Highway Code in law was carefully studied by this Committee. As your Lordships will know, failure to observe the provisions of the Highway Code is not of itself an offence, but it can be regarded in civil and criminal proceeding as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question. Although the Committee recommended by a majority that its legal position ought to be strengthened, the Minister, after the most careful consideration, decided that it would not be desirable to do this. There was a difficulty in devising a halfway house between the existing status of the Code and giving it the force of law. A minority of the Committee, a minority which consisted of motoring organisations, the National Road Transport Federation and some representatives of the Trades Union Congress, thought that the Highway Code failed not so much
1934
because of its legal status or lack of it but because it was not written in such a form as would command the respect of road users and the courts. Therefore, it has been the object of my right honourable friend to ensure that the new Code consists of a series of clear rules. Great care was taken in its drafting and a great many suggestions, not least from a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Howe, were considered, and in a great many cases adopted. I think the House will agree that this Code is an improvement upon its predecessor.
The previous editions have been inclined to consist of advice, and the Code came to be classed as something which it was necessary to know in order to pass one's driving test. In fact, of course, it is more than that. It should be regarded as a manual of good conduct for all road users, and it applies equally to pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as to motorists. I do not propose to draw any distinction between the form or the content of the new Code as against the old one. Your Lordships will probably have copies before you and you will see what has been done, but I would draw attention to a few of what I think are improvements. First of all, as I have already said, mere advice has been removed from the Code and replaced by forceful directions. The typography and presentation are greatly improved. Diagrams have been added to the important braking table. The laws and "The Law's Demands" have been brought up to date and set out better than they were before, and notes have been added on first aid.
As regards the distribution of the Code, my right honourable friend proposes to print 10 million copies as the first issue. Of these, about 6 million will be used to issue one each to drivers who apply for the renewal of their driving licences, and about half a million will be needed in the first year for applicants for provisional driving licences. In addition, 2 million will be put on sale to the general public at a price of one penny each, and one million will be distributed to the older children in the schools. The balance will go to the Armed Forces, the police, the courts, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Road Safety Committee and other official and semi-official bodies. I hope that your Lordships will agree

1935
that this is a good document, an improvement on its predecessor, and will now give it your blessing. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Paper entitled The Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before the House on the 26th of October last, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 26 thereof.—(Lord Carrington.)
5.6 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I preface any observations which I intend to address to your Lordships on the Highway Code, by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his elevation to dealing with matters of transport? I am sure he must feel he has now reached a really responsible position in having to speak for Her Majesty's Government on matters of this nature. Indeed, may I congratulate your Lordships in having the benefit of that clear and careful exposition with which he has always delighted your Lordships and which has, in the past, always received the approbation of your Lordships' House?
I think I have some responsibility for this Highway Code, as it was while I was at the Ministry of Transport and Chairman of the National Safety First Committee that we first started a review of the then Code, with a view to its revision. As your Lordships will remember, it was at that time that controversy raged as to whether or not the Highway Code should be given the status of law. I must confess that I was open-minded at first, but I came to the conclusion quite definitely that it would be disadvantageous to give it the force of law, because, first of all, it could not be, in its major aspect, enforced; and that would only bring into disrepute, or greater disrepute, if that were possible, the existing legislation as regards road traffic. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the ease may be, in the middle of the Committee's deliberations there was a change of Government. I understand that the Committee eventually recommended that the Code should be given the force of law, but the noble Lord's right honourable friend did not see his way clear to accept the recommendation; and in that I think he was wise.
1936
I think this is a very good document, and that those who are responsible for its production are to be congratulated. It is by far the best presentation of the Highway Code there has been, and if I have any criticism to make, which I have, it must not be in any way thought that I do not pay the highest possible compliment to those hard-working people who I know have laboured so long behind the scenes to make this a really efficient document. The first general criticism I have is this. I think your Lordships are placed this afternoon in, if I may say so, a most ridiculous position. You can either accept this Code or reject it, but any constructive criticism which your Lordships make cannot have any possible effect for about five years, because that will be the time when we shall have the next Highway Code. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was perfectly correct in saying that the first copies of this edition were widely circulated to interested bodies, and to all who the Minister thought could give constructive advice. But that is no substitute for Parliamentary debate. I am going to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that he should convey to his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport that in future, on this Highway Code, we adopt the sensible procedure which we adopted with what will be the next business before your Lordships to-day—namely, the Railways Reorganisation Scheme. That Scheme was first produced as a White Paper. If a similar step were taken with the Highway Code, we could debate the White Paper; the Minister could take note of the suggestions made by your Lordships and those made in another place, and then we could have an agreed document. I am sure that that would be much better than this procedure.
It is a tragic thing that we are considering this Highway Code, which has as its main objective the reduction of road accidents, when only to-day the Department on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is speaking this afternoon has had to publish the fact that road accidents increased in October this year by 20 per cent. over October last year. It is not my purpose this afternoon to raise a debate on the road accident problem; that will have to be debated in your Lordships' House at some other

1937
date; but I frankly think that Nemesis is tapping the Ministry of Transport upon the shoulder. We have got to do something to eliminate this appalling toll on the roads, and if this Highway Code makes the smallest contribution, then it is well worth while.
The first criticism I have to make of the Code is that it is too long. I feel that brevity in it would be a great asset. I am not at all certain—I am open to persuasion, and it may come with expenence—that the last section, "The Law's Demands," is necessary. It is interesting to those of us who take an interest in these things, but the real object with this Highway Code, in all its pictorial aspect, is to get it read, and to get it read by people who do not want to read it. I may be wrong, but I suggest to the noble Lord that in future it might be abbreviated. The first serious criticism that I have concerns Part I. On page 4, what I will call "Exhortation 3" offers the sensible advice to the road user on foot:
"Where there is no footpath, walk on the right of the road to face oncoming traffic."
That is elementary common sense. But the next one, No. 4, says:
"A marching body which cannot use a footpath should keep on the left-hand side of the road."
The first question I want to ask is somewhat rhetorical: What is "a marching body?" Is it one, two, ten or twenty? And why give a marching body different advice from that given to those who do not constitute a marching body? Surely, it is common sense that everybody who walks along a road should walk facing oncoming traffic.
I would recall to your Lordships that tragic accident at Chatham. If that party of cadets had been marching along that road on the right-band side, facing the oncoming traffic, that accident might never have happened; and in any case, it might have been greatly reduced, because they might have had the opportunity of seeing the vehicle that ran them down, and jumped to safety. But owing to the fact that it came up behind them they could not see it at all. In my view, that is a serious blemish on this Highway Code—in fact, it is my major criticism. I do not know whether that advice could be altered; I do not know whether the document could be inter
1938
leaved, or an amended Rule put over the top of the Rule as printed; but I think it is suicide to put in, as advice to a body of marching men, women or children, that they should walk on the left-hand side of the road and thereby have the traffic coming up behind them, instead of in front of them. The rest of my criticism is a matter of detail, but I think noble Lords will agree with me that that is serious.
On page 6, Recommendation 17 says:
"Keep well to the left. …"
What does that mean? I believe that the Hendon Police College recommend that a vehicle should, in normal circumstances, be driven two feet from the nearside kerb. Great danger can ensue by vehicles being driven into the kerb, which may be interpreted as "well to the left." If you are two feet from the kerb, you do, at least, stand the chance of missing the thoughtless pedestrian who steps off the kerb into the gutter without looking behind. I come next to the matter of overtaking. No. 31 says:
"Never pull out sharply. …"
No. 32 says:
"Never cross a continuous white line. …"
And No. 30, says:
"Overtake on the right except when the driver in front has signalled that he intends to turn right."
I should have thought it would be better to say, "Never overtake on the left," which is far more positive. Overtaking on the left is a great source of danger. In the present congested state of our roads a bicycle is often a quicker means of transport than a motor car, and we have all had the experience of dawdling along a highly-trafficked street at something in the region of five miles an hour and being continuously overtaken by cyclists on our left, who are a positive danger. They should have a clear instruction always to overtake on the right.
I now come to railway level crossings. What an anachronism that in the Highway Code of 1954 we should have to tell people what to do when they come to a level crossing! I hope that in the next Session we may hear something about a new road programme and a new conception on road construction, and that level crossings will become things of the past. Now a word on No. 44, "Turning Corners." I believe that filtering should always be allowed. The great object of

1939
traffic control is to keep the traffic moving. Here it says:
"When held up at a road junction by police or light signals do not 'filter' left unless you receive a definite signal to do so."
I would reverse that advice. I think one should always filter to the left unless there is a definite signal not to do so, because I think that in 99 cases out of 100 filtering to the left is an aid to keeping traffic moving. There is another item called, "Extra rules for pedal cyclists." Not only would I have that rule about "Do not overtake on the left" reiterated, but I should like some exhortation to pedal cyclists not to weave, if I may coin that expression. What is the common experience? Vehicles are held up at traffic lights, and there is a constant stream of pedal cyclists and motor-cyclists weaving in and out, right up to the traffic lights. By the time the lights turn to amber there is a solid mass of cyclists and motorcyclists, all wobbling, trying to get off and holding up the traffic. If only they would keep their place in the queue and not take advantage of the fact that they are so narrow that they can weave to the front, the cause of many accidents would be removed.
Now I come to No. 59:
"After dark, do not rely on sidelights in built-up areas unless the street lighting is good."
This advice really accentuates the dazzle problem. If we are to have (and I agree that it is sometimes necessary) headlights on in built-up areas, the dazzle problem as we know it to-day is going to be accentuated. This pinpoints the lack of good street lighting. The ideal is for the street lighting in a built-up area to be so good that a vehicle does not require any lights at all. We have, thank goodness! some sensible local authorities who have achieved that ideal. I will not give them a free advertisement by mentioning them. But there are also some local authorities, and in London, too, who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for their street lighting. Take the Great West Road. The best lighting on the Great West Road is provided by the floodlighting of industrial buildings, and once you get past those buildings you come into a black patch that is positively dangerous. It is the same with Western Avenue. The dazzle problem can be solved without any of these so-called
1940
scientific experiments. It would take time to have all the cars adapted to it—we should have to wait for some of the old ones to go off the road—but the solution to the dazzle problem is that both headlights should not only be dimmed but dipped. It is no good dimming one and dipping one. Both of them should dip and swivel to the left. The same thing should be done with motor-cycle headlights, which are in many cases a bigger menace than car headlights.
In Part 3, No. 67 says:
"Keep your dog under control when you take it for a walk. …"
What does this mean? What is, "Keeping a dog under control"? There is only one way to keep a dog under control, and that is to have it on a lead. There should have been a clear exhortation here, "Never take a dog out unless it is on a lead." The number of accidents that are caused through stray dogs is a disgrace, and no true dog lover would ever take a dog out for a walk in a crowded built-up area except on a lead. I suggest that we should have had that definite exhortation here.
There are only about two more observations that I have to make. Now we come to the last Part of the Code. I am not very keen on these traffic light signal illustrations. Cannot we do something better than this pasty yellow on page 26? It is not amber; one can hardly see it. It would make for improvement if we could have that printed a little deeper in colour. I want the noble Lord's advice on this next point, because very likely he knows more about this particular thing than I do. On page 29, under the heading, "To drivers of motor vehicles," the Code says:
"Before driving make sure that … you are not under the influence of drink or a drug."
How does one do that? It is a long time since I had any experience of this kind of thing, but I have always been told that the greater the influence of drink upon a person, the louder are his protestations that he is completley sober. In other words, to use modern parlance, the "tighter" you are, the more you declare your sobriety. How do you make certain that you are not under the influence of drink? Would it not be better either to leave out that part of the advice or, alternatively, make some positive statement such as, "Do not drink and

1941
drive a car," because nobody is going to admit that he us under the influence of drink. I think that is rather a useless exhortation.
I have tried to be constructive in the criticisms I have made. Although probably it is too late to include any of these suggestions in this Code, I would press the noble Lord to discuss with his right honourable friend the possibility of doing something about my first criticism, the instruction—because that is what it amounts to—to people, if they are in a body, to walk on the left hand side of the road, thus laying themselves open (because they are not going to carry lamps unless they are military troops) to being run down from behind. I would ask the noble Lord to discuss that point with his right honourable friend. I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord on the fact that we are making some progress with this problem. I can only express the hope that I expressed at first, that this Highway Code will make some contribution to solving this appalling social problem of accidents on the road
5.30 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am deeply interested in the Highway Code, because during the time the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha was in office I had the honour of serving on the Public Safety Committee of the Ministry of Transport which first considered the original Highway Code. Ever since then I have naturally taken a great interest in it. I should at once like to pay a tribute, and to echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to the Minister of Transport and the officials of his Department for the document which they have now produced. It is by no means perfect, but it is a distinct advance on its predecessors. There are a number of suggestions which I have submitted from time to time to the Minister—not the present Minister of Transport but his predecessor—with regard to the document as a whole. One was that the document should be illustrated so that a foreigner coming over here could understand it, even if he could not understand English. Noble Lords will notice that to a certain extent that has been done, but I submit that it has not been done nearly so well as it could have been.
1942
I submitted to the Minister of Transport a copy of the Swedish Highway Code which contains a number of extremely good little illustrations. I do not know one word of Swedish of any sort, and yet I could take the Swedish Highway Code, look at all the little pen and ink sketches inside, which are more apt than those in our own Highway Code, and understand it. It is easy to interpret the document. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has spoken about the question—it is a perennial question—whether this document should be given the force of law. When one gets into a motor car and drives it down the street there are already over 3,000 offences which one can commit. I do not want to see that 3,000 increased, even by one, if it can be avoided, because I am perfectly certain of this: that not one of your Lordships can get into a car to-day and guarantee not to break the existing law when he drives it, however careful he may be. Somehow, I feel that this document gains by not having the force of law but by being what, in fact, it is—a code of proper conduct on the road. One only wishes that it would be observed by everybody.
The next point that strikes one about this document is, probably, the colour scheme. I do not know what particular significance there may be in the colour scheme. Some of the pages are blue, some are green and there are various other colours. If they have a significance, I suppose it is a good thing to have them there, but I could not understand what they really meant. I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 4 seems absolutely to stultify paragraph 3. I cannot think why it was put in. It is perfectly obvious that if a body of people, or even an individual, are walking along a road, the mere fact that they are walking towards you enables you to pick them up in your headlights; you see their white faces, I should have thought it would be much safer if, in paragraph 4, marching bodies had been directed to do the same as the single pedestrian is directed to do in paragraph 3.
Then we come to Part 2, "The Road User on Wheels." As a general criticism, I would submit that there is one fault of a great many drivers of cars on the road to-day. One can see it in nine cases out of ten—it is lack of concentration. How

1943
often, when one is going along, perhaps following another car, one sees the driver ahead take his eyes, and therefore necessarily his attention, off the road in order to speak to his passenger, who may be a very charming and beautiful woman. It is a very bad thing to do and it should be avoided. Yet I cannot find anything in this document which stresses the point and tells the driver not to take his attention off the road. Part 2, headed "The Road User on Wheels," opens with the words:
"To all drivers and riders and in general to those in charge of horses."
It seems a little queer, when one has been told that this part addresses itself to people on wheels, to find a reference to horses. A little re-arrangement there would have been a good idea.
Another fault which is committed by many drivers of motor vehicles in this country, particularly private car owners, is to go along in echelon, overlapping the car ahead, in order, probably, to obtain a clear view of the road, perhaps to find out whether or not they can pass. That sort of formation, if persisted in and carried too far, produces situations of considerable danger. There is nothing that I can see in this booklet which applies to that fault, beyond a general exhortation to keep well to the left.
Paragraph No. 35 refers to the "Halt" sign. I think the "Halt" sign is one of the worst that was ever introduced. When it was brought in originally, the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, gave us an undertaking that it was a purely temporary measure and that if the Public Safety Committee would accept it the "Halt" sign would be put up only at those road intersections where it was necessary and until they could be improved; and that, when they were improved, the "Halt" sign would disappear. We all thought at the time that the "Halt" sign, once erected, would not disappear; it would always remain. I think the "Halt sign is one of the worst. Where do you halt? How long do you halt? All sorts of such silly questions and considerations are involved. On the other hand, the sign "Slow: Major Road Ahead," or something of that sort, tells you what it really means. It is a far more effective sign than the "Halt" sign. Of course, it is a matter
1944
of opinion but I think, from the point of view of the driver of a motor vehicle, that the "Slow: Major Road Ahead" sign is much more effective.
On page 9, we get a section headed "Turning Corners." I think the first two paragraphs under that heading, Nos. 41 and 42, are very good. I was once concerned in a very serious crash involving an Army vehicle which wanted to turn to its left. It was coming towards me and it began a manœuvre by going straight over to my side of the road. To avoid a head-on crash, I had to go round it on the other side. It being an Army vehicle, I could get no redress. It was most awkward. However, I think the position is very well dealt with in paragraphs 41 and 42. With regard to paragraph 54, which reads:
"If a driver, look in your driving mirror before you signal or change course, or overtake, or turn, or stop",
I should much have preferred, as I told the previous Minister of Transport, words to this effect:
"Before altering course, satisfy yourself that it is safe to do so,"
because, if carried out, that would force a driver to use his mirror. Many drivers simply ignore their mirrors altogether. That is a great pity and produces, on occasion, considerable danger. Next, we come to paragraph 60, dealing with headlights. There is no doubt that that paragraph indicates a continuance of bad street lighting. On the other hand, I do not see how it can be better because, quite obviously, we cannot, for a great many years to come, wave a wand and have all streets properly lit. Probably it will be many generations before our streets are properly lit. On the other hand, if it is not sufficient to use your sidelights and you have got to use headlights, would it not have been a good thing to include in paragraph 60, after the words, "when meeting other vehicles and cyclists" the words "and in a built-up area"? Then we go to paragraph 69, which says
"If you are riding a keep to the left."
It is a great many years since I rode a horse—there are many noble Lords who can tell us more about riding. But I wonder whether it really is better for a person riding a horse to keep to the left, or whether it is better that the horse

1945
should meet the traffic. I should like to hear from one of your Lordships in that connection.
My Lords, I come now to page 22, where the various signs are indicated. How I wish that the Ministry of Transport could have chosen some other sign for the beginning of a speed limit! This sign happens to be of almost exactly tie same size and general design as the bus stop sign, and if while going along an unfamiliar road one comes to a bus stop sign, one is not quite sure whether it is a bus stop sign or a 30 m.p.h. limit sign. I feel that either the 30 m.p.h. limit sign should stay as it is and all bus stop signs should be changed, or vice versa. I do not know whether, in future, the Minister of Transport can do anything to bring that about. It would make things a little better if it were possible. With regard to the last Part of the Code, on page 28 there are some regulations referring to pedal cyclists. What is the good of having any regulations referring to pedal cyclists? As matters stand at the moment, the pedal cyclist can snap his fingers at the law. No police officer can stop him. He need not stop; he is not compelled by law to stop for a policeman; yet he is told to observe traffic signs and signals and the directions of a police officer concerning traffic. But if he were to pass through, the policeman could do nothing about it; he could not stop him.
Those are the main points that I desire to submit to your Lordships. I should like once again to say how very much the whole of the motor world, as I know it, must appreciate the efforts that have been made by the Ministry of Transport to produce this Code in a really readable form. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply, are we going to have a "super" copy of this Code issued at some later date? I understand from various announcements in the Press, and I think indeed from the Minister himself, that an improved edition of this Code, perhaps for home use, is contemplated. I cannot help feeling that, if that is so, the Code could he made a little less dry than it is. It might help the public to read it if it could include some moderately humorous cartoons. There is an individual called Brockbank, whose cartoons appear in many journals. Perhaps
1946
he could be persuaded to produce some moderately humorous cartoons that could be included in the book. In that way I think there would be much more chance of getting it read in various households. I do not know whether or not that is the intention, but I throw out that suggestion.
5.45 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I rise simply to congratulate the Ministry of Transport on producing at any rate a more picturesque Highway Code than we have had hitherto. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, sitting opposite, I am reminded of the great efforts that he made in striking the imagination of the public in this regard, and I can assure him that his broadcast the other day was greatly appreciated. I am not going to attempt to go through the Code; we have already had two most capable speeches from experts in that connection. What I want to say is that it is a good Code, but we shall not make the roads safer with only a paper code. It is the code of conduct that matters if we are to make our roads safer for the pedestrian, and even for the motorist. I heard last night that in October there were 22,000 casualties on the roads, including nearly 500 dead. I could not help thinking that if that casualty list had come over the wireless as having happened in Kenya or in Malaya, we should have been terribly shocked. I can assure your Lordships that there are people who work, day in and day out, trying to open the minds of the public in regard to making the roads safer. This group of people, formed by the Ministry and now called the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, with very little advertisement, and with very little comment in the Press, carry on work which I thought was extremely good when I joined them eight years ago, but for which to-day I am filled with admiration.
My own Federation of Public Authorities will meet to-morrow. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with details, but representatives of seventy-three public authorities, great and small, will then present reports showing what they have been able to do during the last three months. These people—councillors, aldermen, teachers and police—carry on from day to day in order to make the roads safer for the public. First of all,

1947
we got at the schoolchildren. Now, because there are too many accidents involving children who are not yet going to school, we have tried to bring a greater sense of awareness even to the womenfolk. We have embarked upon a campaign, using paper bags. We have sold a million of these paper bags in Yorkshire alone during the last two or three months. When they go for their groceries, not only do the women get a paper bag but they get a slogan which reminds them of the dangers. If a child does the shopping, the child is similarly reminded. When they get home and sit down to tea we see to it that they have a table napkin to instruct them. Its printed message will bring home to them that when they go out they must be both good and careful on the roads. In the North, at least, many children have received this set of slogans in this form. I do not know what is being done in the South, but under the imaginative inspiration of the new Minister I hope that we shall make greater headway in bringing increasing safety to our roads. We have found greater difficulty in bringing home the message of road safety to womenfolk than to the children. We shall continue day by day, and month by month, our work of trying to educate the public to greater road safety.
As the Ministry of Transport and motorists generally have been mentioned, may I ask for more flexibility and sympathy from the Minister himself and from the members of his staff? In my district, in an attempt to please everybody, there is a stretch of road coming from the Pennines into Yorkshire which bears four different signs within a distance of one mile: controlled, decontrolled, controlled again, and, finally, de-controlled. There are possibilities there for a motorist, unless he has particularly good eyesight, to run into danger. In advising the Minister on road control, the public authorities should be treated more sympathetically. The Minister and those who serve him should accept that local people are likely to know a little more of local circumstances than the Minister in Whitehall. In the West Riding the local council passed a resolution requiring additional traffic lights at a point where two main roads converge at a junction. The Minister ruled that there was not sufficient traffic
1948
to justify this additional lighting. Traffic lights appear to be the best form of traffic control available to us. They give a sense of security not only to the motorist but also to the pedestrian, especially the pedestrian who is getting on in years and who is unable to run fast, or at least unable to cover fifty yards in under a minute.
I once brought to the attention of the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, now adorning the Front Opposition Bench, the number of black spots then existing in the West Riding. He may find poor satisfaction in learning that they totalled 116 when he was in office and that, under the new Minister, the number is still 116. We have also to remember that the greater number of accidents occur in built-up areas, and I hope the Minister will take steps to make such black spots safer. We have demontrated to our own satisfaction, and we hope to do it to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport, that our main arterial roads, instead of being a dirty black in colour, should be lighter. More white cement should be used in making roads, so that when a motorist is driving he can more easily and more clearly see objects on the road. We have proved by experiment that a white road is safer than a dark coloured road.
We have also to convince the motorist that he can be a public danger—he already knows it in his heart. I hope the Minister will try to carry through a crusade by giving every garage in this country posters of the kind I have here. I will not display them, though I wish that some of them could be shown in the Library. If that were done with a great number of garages one could bring home to the motorist, and more particularly to the motor-cyclist, the fact that good conduct and courtesy are the best way of reducing accidents on the roads. I am glad the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and also my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth felt that it should be stressed in frank, rude, bold language, "Do not drink alcoholic liquors if you are driving a motor vehicle." I believe that a poster condemning the practice of "one for the road" was brought out, but that the late Minister of Transport banned it, so that it has not been shown to the public. We all know that the average motorist, even if he does enjoy a glass of decent sherry, would not dream of taking too much if

1949
he is going to drive a lethal weapon like a motor car.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has brought this Highway Code before the House. I believe that the noble Lord is now a sort of "Pooh-Bah" who, in addition to looking after the defences of this great Empire and other matters, has taken on roads as well. I wish him luck in his task. I hope that he will bring these matters to the notice of that new broom, the very alive Minister, in the hope that some of the excellent suggestions from previous speakers may be adopted, so that we may make the Highway Code a living code of conduct and courtesy.
6.0 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has said that a paper document will not, by itself, reduce the number of accidents, but I am sure he will agree with me that this document should go a long way in helping in that direction. I should like to add my compliments to those which have already been tendered to the Ministry of Transport for the production of this excellent Highway Code. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that it would have been far better if the document had been drafted in the form of a White Paper which we could have debated, as was done in the case of the Railway Reorganisation Scheme. Lord Lucas of Chilworth also said that it was too long. I suggest that if the document had no "guts" at all, then no one would bother to read it. On the whole, I think the Code is very good. As regards railway crossings, the more and more we can get rid of them the better. If one looks up the figures, one finds that they run into many thousands in this country, so it will take a very long time, and cost a great deal of money, to get rid of them.
I should just like to touch briefly on one or two points in the Code. There seems to be no mention in it of blowing one's horn when passing another car. I feel that that does produce a certain degree of safety. I always like anyone who is about to pass me to let me know that he is going to do so. With regard to the question of the force of law being given to this document, of course if it had been given the force of law, the Code would have been very much longer—and,
1950
I suspect, would also have been unintelligible to the average individual One of the points mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was about riding horses. I always prefer riding on the right hand side of the road—that is to say, facing the oncoming traffic. I suspect that the original idea of riding on the left-hand side of the road arose because in the old days horses used to shy at oncoming traffic. Now they are much more used to it. Those are the only points that I wish to make. I close by saying again how much I appreciate this excellent document.
6.3 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to say one or two words also in support of this excellent Code which has been published. With regard to paragraph 44, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I should like to put this point to him. Paragraph 44 says:
"When held up at a road junction by police or light signal do not 'filter' left unless you receive a definite signal to do so."
At many of these junctions there is an arrow pointing to the left that does not light up for a few seconds in order to give the public a chance to get across. Also, there is usually a policeman who holds up the traffic while people are crossing the road. Personally, I think that that paragraph is correctly worded. We must allow pedestrians to go through. I do not know whether Lord Lucas of Chilworth thought of that. On the whole, I think it is correct, and that is one reason why I think this is a much better document than the one which it supersedes. I hope that it will prove successful. On the question of lighting, I think it is very important to get on with that matter. A great deal has been done in the last five years, but the question of dazzle has become of greater moment, and this particular nuisance is now very bad indeed. On many main roads the lighting is so inadequate that when you come to a bad patch, a dark patch, you have to use the headlights on your car. On many cars there is only a switch to turn these off and on—they do not have a dimmer. I think that this is a problem which we have to face. As I say. I give my support to this new Code.
6.5 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if I make one or two criticisms, very briefly, I hope that your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not think that I am disapproving of this document, of which I have formed the same favourable impression as other speakers. There are, however, one or two points which I should like to raise on the details of the scheme. The English driver, I think, has one besetting sin: he is prone to cling—indeed, I think I can say he is persistent in clinging—to the crown of the road. I suggest that, wherever possible, where the roads are of a triple width, those widths should be marked out, because I have repeatedly noticed that, where this is done, traffic will keep to its main lines. The Code, in paragraph 33, refers to the keeping of traffic in its own lanes, and in this connection may I say that I disagree with Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the question of the propriety of passing on the left a car which is drawing into the middle of the road in order to turn right. Frankly, I did not follow that point as the noble Lord made it. I am satisfied, in fact, that one must do that, otherwise there is no point in keeping in the correct line of traffic, when one is going to the right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, that is precisely what I said. What I said was: "Never pass on the left unless the driver ahead is turning to the right."
LORD FARINGDON: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I were together in our misunderstanding of what the noble Lord said. I am glad now to find myself in agreement with him.
May I suggest to Lord Carrington, that the police in London might have it suggested to them that they should follow a practice which is common in Paris. If a motorist happens to drive his car into the wrong lane of traffic in Paris, the police officer on point duty will firmly make him carry on down the street or the direction in which his lane is bound to go. And in a town where—as is the case with all modern towns—there are large numbers of one-way streets, this causes considerable inconvenience to the motorist. I believe that our traffic would
1952
become a great deal more orderly if this practice were extended to London. In paragraph 62 of the Code there is a reference to direction indicators. That is a reference with which I would quarrel in no way, but what I regret is that indicators have not been made compulsory, not necessarily on all cars but certainly on motor vehicles having a left-hand drive. I am always shocked to see, as one so often sees, a notice on the back of a car which reads:
"Left-hand drive. No signals."
In other words, the driver is firmly announcing that he is going to disobey the provisions of the Code; he is not going quite to break the law, but very nearly. I think that in other directions such declarations of non-compliance would be strongly disapproved of. I suggest that cars and other motor vehicles which have left-hand drives should be compelled to carry traffic indicators.
In paragraph 66, one is warned against getting out of the off-side door of a motor car. I am sure it will be the experience of all of your Lordships that 99 per cent of motor cars have a lock on the off-side front door. Inevitably, therefore, if you are going to lock up your car—as you are advised to do—you lock the inside doors; and you then have to get out of the off-side door which you then lock from the outside. Perhaps it would be better to get out of the near-side door and walk round, and lock the offside door, but I think that that would be asking too much. I suggest that the Ministry should bring to the attention of motor car manufacturers the desirability of making it the near-side front door which locks on the outside. I think that would tend to prevent people from getting out on the wrong side. Under the legal section there is reference to dirt on windscreens. I believe that considerable experiments have been carried out with an invention in the form of a mudguard which prevents the throwing up of dirt. I am sure that all your Lordships who drive must constantly have found what a nuisance and inconvenience it is to have your windscreen "muddied" by a car in front of you. I am told that a mudguard has now been evolved which is simple and which prevents most of this throwing up of mud. I would suggest that the compulsory fitting of such mudguards would be a considerably greater security measure than,

1953
for example, the recent fitting of reflector lights on the backs of cars—not that I am criticising that idea; I am not; on the contrary, I approve it.
I would just say one word to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, what he has to say about the question of marching bodies. I have a fairly open mind upon the matter. I am rather inclined to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and even with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with neither of whom would I wish to disagree on a matter of this sort. It seems to me, however, that a marching body must necessarily be treated as a form of vehicle, and I should have thought that the correct way of dealing with it would be to insist on the carrying of a light, rather than to have it marching on the wrong side of the road. I would ask my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth to consider the position when a marching body reaches a corner. When it sees the lights of an approaching vehicle, does it immediately take to the hedgerow or does it continue to march? Is there not the risk in that case that it would be run into by the approaching vehicle? I think this is not quite such a clear point as the noble Lord seemed to think.
6.11 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which you have received this Highway Code, and particularly grateful because so many noble Lords who have spoken are experts on the subject. Even those of us who do not study these matters as carefully as they do, consider ourselves to be experts, because we are either motorists or pedestrians. Therefore, I am grateful for the way your Lordships have received this Code and I will convey your suggestions to my right honourable friend the Minister. I will not answer them all in detail, because a great many were made, but I will pick out those which I thought were of importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, criticised the procedure under which we have to approve this Code. I should have thought there was a good deal of substance in what he says, but he knows as well as I do that this Code is produced under the Affirmative Resolution procedure and therefore we cannot amend it. I agree with him that in a way that cuts out most of the usefulness of this
1954
debate, as we can talk about what is in the Code and criticise it but in the end we can do nothing about it. I shall certainly draw his suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend and we will see in future whether anything can be done on those lines, although, of course, I do not make any promise about it.
The most serious criticism that was made by noble Lords on all sides of the House was on Rules 3 and 4 on page 4, dealing with marching bodies and single pedestrians. If your Lordships will look at the Code, you will see that Rule 3 says:
"Where there is no footpath, walk on the right of the road to face oncoming traffic."
I think the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has the right explanation. One or two people straggling along the road can see traffic coming towards them and, if it looks dangerous, can take cover or leap for their lives into the hedge; but if it is a marching body of men—this is undefined, but it is probably six or more men under the control of somebody—they are moving along the road in a block and there the rule is that such traffic should move on the left. If they move on the right against the traffic, they would hold up traffic and that would be more dangerous to them than if they marched on the left. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that the safeguard here is lights at night, back and forward, and in the day there could be lookouts. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will reflect, he will agree that that is quite consistent and quite safe. Indeed, it was the suggestion of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety.
The noble Lord made one or two other more minor criticisms. For instance, he criticised the paragraph about dogs being kept under control. Well, perhaps he has dogs like mine, which are rather out of control; but I hope that, unlike myself, most people have their dogs under control. It is perfectly possible, if you have the time and patience, to train a dog to keep by you without having it on a lead. If I took a dog out shooting and it did not behave itself without being on a lead, I should be in a very had way. I think it is unnecessary to stipulate that all dogs should be on a lead when there are a great many which behave perfectly well without being put on a lead. The noble Lord also criticised the colour of the amber traffic lights. We are trying to do something

1955
about that but I am told there are technical difficulties. However, we are trying something on those lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, also drew attention to the rule in the section "The Law's Demands":
"Before driving, make sure that you are not under the influence of drink."
The noble Lord will appreciate that that is not part of the Highway Code: that is the law. There is on the cover of the Highway Code another reference to drink which says:
"Remember, alcohol, even in quite small amounts, makes you less safe on the roads. Be sure you are fit to use them."
I think my right honourable friend is not quite sure whether or not that is strong enough; at any rate he is looking into it to see whether the words should be altered. May I give some advice to the noble Lord, who seemed to be a little worried at the suggestion that when some people have had a few drinks they think they are more fit to drive a car than they were before they started drinking? If he ever finds that he does not know whether he is drunk or sober, then he is drunk, and I advise him not to drive a car.
My noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Teynham asked a question about whether horses should be ridden on the right or on the left of the road, and my noble friend behind me said he always rode on the right. I would break the news to him that if he has been doing that he has probably been breaking the law for a great many years, because I understand that under the Highways Act, 1835, a horseman has to ride on the left side of the road. I suggest that perhaps he ought to mend his ways from now on. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, intervened in the debate. He has worked for road safety in the West Riding for a good many years and anything he says will be listened to with interest by your Lordships. I think I have covered most of the important points which have been raised in this short debate. If there are any others which I have left out, I will look at them and I certainly will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister to them at a later date.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ORGANISATION) SCHEME DRAFT ORDER, 1954
6.17 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK) rose to move, That the British Transport Commission (Organisation) Scheme Draft Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Order, I would recall to your Lordships the fact that we had a full discussion on the subject in your Lordships' House and in another place, and I do not think that at this hour your Lordships will expect me to give the details of the Scheme at very great length. Since we discussed the Order there has been one small alteration as a result of the discussions in both Houses. In Article 9, before the words in the third line "with the approval of the Minister" the words "after consultation with and" have been inserted. That is intended to leave the initiative with regard to operating costs and statistics with the Commissioners but to make quite clear that in approving the form in which these should be published the Minister should have prior consultation. With those words I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the British Transport Commission (Organisation) Scheme Draft Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. For my part, everything that needs to be said about this Order has been said. On the principle that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, I am prepared now to suspend judgment until the Scheme is in operation and working. We shall have plenty of opportunities of criticising, if criticism be necessary, in the future.
6.20 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am not in such a happy position as my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He has declared himself to be quite satisfied with this Scheme and says, "Let it be brought into operation and let us study it thereafter." I am not suggesting that we divide against it or anything of that kind,

1957
but before we part with this Order I should like to make a few observations. I am glad that we have had it clearly established that overhead policy is to remain in the hands of the Commission. But I still have a lurking fear that this scheme is more evidence of opposition to nationalisation than a genuine desire to enable this great nationalised service to earn a greater measure of public approval and support or, alternatively, so far as Scotland is concerned, to give Scotland real control of this public asset.
There are one or two points that I want to make, arising out of my misgivings. One point, particularly, I should like to have explained, because I think there may be some misunderstanding over what was said in another place when this matter was under discussion. In reply to a question by Mr. Collick yesterday about the flexibility of charges in the various areas, the Minister used these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 533 (No. 186), col. 1115):
"As the honourable Gentleman will appreciate, under the proposed charges scheme there will be much greater flexibility in Charges, and it is a question of using that greater flexibility for local variations which seemed to me to be a particularly appropriate matter for the Area Boards to consider."
I think that statement may lead to some misunderstanding, because surely the question of the charges is a matter of major policy, and to give anything in the way of an overriding power to the various Areas to fix charges for themselves might lead to difficulty. There is central control of policy, as I have indicated. There will be, I feel, a general railway classification book to decide that goods coming under certain categories will be charged at certain rates. I would ask whether the Minister's statement means, for example, that coal from the coalfields in Scotland which has to be taken to places in the West Highlands, or the North of Scotland, could be carried specially and exceptionally at lower rates than coal going in other directions. That is something within the Scottish Area that is to be set up. There is another way of looking at this: would it be possible for the Scottish Area to apply special rates, for example, for fish going from Wick, or Mallaig, or Aberdeen to English cities beyond the Scottish Area? I hope that we may have the position made clear, because unless a firm statement is
1958
made I think the Minister's statement may lead to confusion.
It was indicated in the other place that the total railway expenditure will be about £445 million. I wish to ask how that amount will be allocated between the six Areas. I ventured to indicate, when the White Paper was under discussion, that one of my apprehensions arose from the fact that I was afraid that, in any comparison made between the Areas in respect of the earning capacity per train-mile, or in any other way, Scotland might show up in art unfavourable light. That is something over which we have no control. We have longer tracks of railway in Scotland Than there are south of the Border and it could not be expected that, over these lines the traffic will be sufficient for the line to earn the amount that might be earned in more highly populated and industrialised areas. I would ask how that £445 million is to be allocated. It was shown that only £1 million would be left in the hands of the Commission for their own purposes, and that the best part of the expenditure would be for the Areas to handle.
These are detailed questions. My feeling about this whole matter is that the railway need at the present time is a greater sense of vocation and, if possible, a renewal of the old loyalty and devotion to the service that existed in the first quarter of this century. It was then looked upon as a privilege to have the opportunity of working upon the railway. It was felt then that if a young man entered the railway service, if he behaved himself, he had a job for life, whereas in most other industries employment was more precarious—there were slumps and fluctuations that made it less certain that there would be continuous employment. I speak from experience in this regard, because I am the third generation of a family of railway workers. It was a proud moment for my father and mother when I went into the railway service, and I was proud to serve in it. I am glad to think that one of he greatest trade union leaders I ever knew inspired me further along that line of pride in the service. Some noble Lords in this House will have a clear memory of the late Lord Walkden, who was general secretary of my own trade union, the Railway Clerks' Association, which I joined in 1908. I am not a paying member any more, but I am still an honorary

1959
member of that great union. His urge upon us in the service was to put the best that we knew into the service, to make of it a great public service; he said that on the basis of the work we did we should be able to claim the best conditions that could be obtained by the industry in the light of its resources. I ask noble Lords to note that the prerequisite was the putting of the best we knew into the service. That was the atmosphere in which I worked during the whole time that I was serving in the railway service.
But since that time there has been a change. Two world wars are partly responsible for the change that has taken place, and I just make this comment upon that fact. It is impossible to turn ploughshares into swords for years on end without doing harm to normal standards of conduct, and even to standards of morality. Great changes have taken place. Better material conditions have been established in the railway service, and these improved conditions have, to some extent, reduced the power of the railway service to recruit workers, because even better conditions have been obtained in other industries; and that old loyalty and attachment to the railway service because it was the railway service, has largely gone. There is the handicap which naturally applies to an industry that works "round the clock." Young people demand that their weekends be free, and they are reluctant to engage in work which restricts that liberty. Another factor is that the railway trade unions came late in the queue of those who were calling for better conditions when the last war ended. The result of being late, and the result of the conditions that could be offered, told against the recruitment of the best type of workers for the railway service.
Good conditions and amenities are needed to counteract these disabilities. I am not saying that the conditions are bad. In many cases they are quite good, and there are many amenities connected with the railway service which are provided deliberately—convalescent homes and the like are supported from railway funds, and by the staff, and there are super-annuation schemes and all the rest. But there remains the disability of this desire of young people to have their Saturdays off, and not to be working at unreason
1960
able hours, as they would consider them. When I say that better methods and good conditions are needed, I am not offering any detailed items which I think can be brought into effect immediately. That would be a task, and a great task, for the Area Authorities when they are set up. I merely mention these things in order that those who are recruited for this service will regard it is a great and honourable service to work for—the proper functioning of what I look upon as the great arteries of our industrial and commercial life in this country and, indeed, of our social life as well. The new Area Authorities will have to give attention to these things in order to get the best they can in the way of staff, and I wish them well in the task that they will undertake once they have been appointed.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, we all appreciate the deep feeling with which the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has addressed your Lordships, particularly on the subject of the railway employees. I feel sure that any organisation, and certainly the railways, would be delighted if all their staff had the sense of devotion which the noble Lord has suggested is desirable. I would, if I may, suggest to him that this matter has been very much in the minds of the British Transport Commission in drawing up this Order. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the Explanatory Memorandum of Cmd. 9191, paragraph 27 (f) of which says that one of the purposes of the Area Authorities is
"to encourage loyalty and esprit de corps among the staff and to ensure attention to the welfare of the staff in all its forms."
That is quite specifically laid down as one of the tasks for the Area Authorities to undertake; and I am sure that it is their wish, as the noble Lord has expressed, that those who undertake this work will regard it as a great honour to be asked to play such an important part in this organisation.
The noble Lord asked me one or two questions which I think I can answer satisfactorily, although they will require perhaps rather fuller explanation. First of all, he asked about charges. The position about charges is really quite clear, because it is laid down in the Transport Act, 1953. Section 16, under which this

1961
Order is brought forward says that whatever the Order does, it shall
"reserve to the Commission general financial control and general control of the charges to be made for the services and facilities provided."
It is quite clear that a charges scheme, as such, is the responsibility of the Commission. What, however, I think my right honourable friend had in mind is that there is no reason why there should not be some measure of flexibility in the charges scheme at the recommendation of the Area Authorities, should they think it desirable, and the Commission agree, if they wish to encourage any specific traffic. The noble Lord knows a great deal more about this aspect than I do. I see no reason why that should not be done, but while the Area Authority might be given a margin within which to work it does not alter the fact that the charges scheme is essentially a matter for the Transport Commission. But there is no reason, so far as I can see, why the Area Authority should not make a suggestion to the Transport Commission and be permitted to work within certain margins at certain times. That is my interpretation of it.
LORD MATHERS: May I just make that clear? The noble Earl means that the authority in respect of these charges lies with the Commission.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Certainly, without any question. The noble Lord then asked whether the running expenditure—I think it is £440 million-odd—would be spent in Scotland. I must make this fact abundantly clear. There is no question of a Goschen scale. The noble Lord knows the range of current expenditure on the railways could not possibly be subordinated to a Goschen scale. What I can tell him is that over one-tenth of that expenditure at the current rate is being spent in Scotland at the present time. It is perfectly clear that money has got to be spent to meet requirements. We made it clear that these Areas should not be self-balancing as such. It is intended that the railway system should work as a whole, so the actual local expenditure, I submit, is slightly irrelevant. The actual amount of expenditure is not of great relevance—the question is whether essential standards are maintained.
The noble Lord expressed some anxiety as to whether Scotland would like the scheme. I do not think there can be any
1962
doubt about it. If there is one part of the country which is glad to have an Area Authority of its own it is Scotland. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said the other day. He said that when he went up to Scotland (I am paraphrasing) he felt strongly that some organisation of this sort was necessary. I feel—and I believe noble Lords feel—that for a long time Scotland has wanted to have some body broadly responsible and physically situated in Scotland which could in some measure look after its railways and transport needs. That is precisely what this reorganisation does. I have every reason to believe that it will be very welcome indeed in Scotland. But that does not prejudice what may be done in other fields. One of the things that we have in mind to do is to set up a Scottish Transport Council. That cal only be done after the Area Authority is already in operation. It is not intended that this Council shall be an executive body, but it will be a body which is representative of all forms of publicly owned and publicly assisted transport in Scotland—whether by road, rail, sea or air. They will be brought together, but, I repeat, they will not be an executive body. We do not want over-centralisation in Scotland any more than we want it in London. The object is that it should meet and discuss matters of common interest with a view to developing an efficient and coordinated system of public transport in Scotland. As to how it will work out only time will tell, but if we get the right people the Council will be of great value and will achieve a useful purpose in the public interest.
The proposal we have to-day is only one of three important developments which are taking place on the railways and deals solely with organisation. At the present time there is a charges scheme which is being considered by the Commission—that is the second development. The third is modernisation of equipment and we hope to hear something about that shortly, but such a scheme will need very wide consultation with the different interests concerned. Those are the three lines on which the railway system in this country is going ahead. I know that I can express your Lordships' entire agreement when I say we wish the Transport Commission every good fortune and success.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.