Lords Sitting of 20 October 1954

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

  LORD SOMERVELL OF HARROW
  2.35 p.m.
  The Right Honourable Sir Donald Bradley Somervell, Knight, O.B.E., a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by subsequent enactments, with the dignity of a Baron for life by the style and title of Baron Somervell of Harrow, of Ewelme in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BRITISH ASSETS IN SHANGHAI
2.45 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: 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, as widely stated in the Press, the Communist Government of China have already reduced the assets of British firms in Shanghai from £300 million to less than £40 million, and whether the British Government have protested against this form of peaceful co-existence.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, it is impossible to make an exact estimate in money terms, but the general scale of the loss may well be of the order indicated by the noble Lord. There has certainly been a very serious reduction in the assets of British firms in China, which are concentrated mainly in Shanghai. Command Paper No. 8639, published in August, 1952, dealt with the representations made by Her Majesty's Government to the Chinese Government about the position of British firms. Other representations have frequently been made to the Chinese Gov
504
ernment about the difficulties which British enterprises have met with in China. It is clear that it is the deliberate policy of the Chinese Government to render it impossible for most British and foreign firms to remain in China and to force them to surrender their assets. The reduction in assets is mainly due to the Chinese authorities forcing British firms into debt by restrictions, regulations and taxes et cetera, so that they have been unable to carry on, and in order to be able to liquidate and leave China they have had to surrender all their assets to the Chinese authorities. Only a comparatively small part of the reduction in assets is due to direct expropriation and confiscation by the Chinese.
Lately, and in particular since the Geneva Conference, the Chinese have been more accommodating in such matters as the issue of entry and exit permits, but their fundamental attitude towards British and other foreign firms has remained unchanged.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, seeing that since I put down the Question it has been announced that the three British Banks and Jardine Matheson are all on the verge of expropriation, could the noble Marquess confirm that prospect? I saw in last Sunday's Observer an article which began, "The end of British trade in China is in sight." The prospect looks pretty black.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I have no direct information about those particular concerns to which the noble Lord refers, but the general position I have given him in the Answer.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, has the noble Marquess's attention been drawn to an article in the Manchester Guardian which says that the prospects of British trade in China are bright?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I have to confess that I returned to this country only on Monday last, after being absent on duty, and I am afraid that that precise article has not yet reached me. I will, however, have a look at it.
LORD VANSITTART: Perhaps I will take up that point which I missed in the Manchester Guardian. It will be interesting to see how the prospects—
A NOBLE LORD: Order, Order!
LORD VANSITTART: —of British trade can be bright when their money is being taken away wholesale the whole time.

IMPRISONMENT OF MR. ROBERT FORD
2.49 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to secure the release of Mr. Robert Ford from brutal and prolonged maltreatment by the Chinese Communists.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, between November, 1950 (one month after his arrest), and the first week of this month, representations on behalf of Mr. Ford have been made to the Chinese authorities by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking on more than twenty occasions. During the conference held at Geneva in May, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires again raised the case of Mr. Ford with a member of the Chinese delegation; the reply was that our representations would be taken into account. Our latest information is that the Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs allege that Mr. Ford has confessed; they add that he has been found guilty but that sentence has not yet been pronounced.
In the summer of 1953, Mr. Ford was seen by another British prisoner at Chungking (since released) who reported that he was apparently fit and well. As no member of Her Majesty's Embassy has been permitted to visit Mr. Ford, I have no knowledge regarding the treatment accorded to him.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, may I point out, with the permission of some noble Lord on the Back Bench, that in the case of Mr. Edgar Sanders we devised some economic means of ensuring his release. Is not this a similar case?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would it not be more in the interests of good relations between China and this country if outrages of this kind were discontinued
506
than that invitations should be issued to political Parties to enjoy their hospitality?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I give notice that to-morrow I shall ask the noble Marquess whether he had any knowledge of the refusal of our representative in Moscow to sit down at the table with the Chinese Ambassador?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: About time, too!
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged for that information.
LORD VANSITTART: May I have an answer to my supplementary question? Would the noble Marquess consider the parallelism of this case with that of Mr. Edgar Sanders?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord may be quite sure that this case has not escaped attention, and if there were anything substantial to be done in the way that he has suggested, that, too, would have been taken into account. Certainly, we have the very keenest interest in doing what we can to alleviate Mr. Ford's position. Indeed, may I add this: that as a result of Geneva he was permitted to write letters, which he had not previously been allowed to do, although I think that only one has actually been received by his parents.
EARL JOWITT: As one who is most anxious to promote Chinese and British understanding and trade, may I ask the noble Marquess whether, since Geneva and the better atmosphere that has been created, this particular matter has been mentioned again? Surely it would be all to the good, in the interests of both countries and of humanity as a whole, if the Chinese Government determined to put an end to the imprisonment of this gentleman.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I agree completely with the noble and learned Earl in saying that it would be a very good thing if the Chinese took that view but, as I said in the original Answer, we made representations at Geneva which we were told would be taken into account. All we have heard since is that Mr. Ford is supposed to have confessed to a series of crimes with which he is charged.

HELICOPTER DEVELOPMENT
2.52 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA rose to call attention to the urgent need for increased development in this country of rotary winged aircraft; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that I have been a member of your Lordships' House for only a very short time, but I have come to the conclusion that it is, without doubt, the most remarkable place in the world, for the reason that it indulges in such a variety of occupations. One day you may see in this House pageantry and ceremonial unequalled in the whole world; the next day your Lordships will be having an acrimonious debate upon Party lines, and another day your Lordships may be, so to speak, revising Bills from another place. But there is one particular side of the work of this House which I think is extremely valuable. Here, we can sometimes, as we are doing to-day, discuss subjects of general interest, suggest future developments and appraise the present situation, and we can do all that without trying to disparage anyone or to convey censure. I consider that a valuable and unique property.
This afternoon I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the helicopter, to ask what are its uses, what is its future and how it fits into our life to-day, and possibly in the future. I cannot help starting by paying a great tribute to the Spaniard Cierva, who invented the autogyro. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that most of the work he did was done in this country until, regrettably, he was killed in an aeroplane accident. It is true to say that he did not actually build a helicopter, but the autogyro effect, which is the safety element in the helicopter, was certainly his invention. His name will always be honoured. Sikorsky, a Russian, started making helicopters in America, and he was just about to fail when, curiously enough—and it is little known—the Royal Navy went to him and ordered a large number of helicopters, which saved him but which were never received because the war came along and they were devoted to the Americans and not to us. So that we have had a certain amount to do with the early days of this remarkable invention.
I now want to turn, first of all, to its uses in war. I have always been a keen advocate of keeping all air forces under one head, in the Royal Air Force. I have always felt that it was peculiarly an arm which could be switched about tactically on various occasions, be it on land, or on the sea, but of course its fundamental and great work is of a strategic type. With the helicopter, however, we get into a somewhat different set of circumstances where the apparatus becomes rather tied tactically to the Service. For instance, in anti-submarine work the helicopter makes a convoy almost self-contained. It does not need an aircraft carrier; it can land on the deck of any ship and, consequently, it is of tremendous value. I would draw attention also to the question of sea rescue by helicopter which has already proved its value. It is true, therefore, to say that the actual possession and running of the helicopter relative to the Navy, apart from the Air Force, is a thing which must be considered. There are, of course, other considerations, such as central radio control and that sort of thing, which might mitigate against it.
In the Army, as your Lordships know, when after a war the staff are training future officers, they train them to run the next war like the last one, and that is invariably the wrong way to train anybody, because wars are never the same. Here I find, very interestingly, that among those officers who think ahead the possibility of the helicopter has been much appreciated. In fact, some people go so far as to say that it will replace the three-ton lorry. Certainly, there is a great deal to be said for the light aeroplane, flying just behind the lines, carrying up to three tons and which can land on what is not an aerodrome but just a field; but the final conveying of munitions to the front line can well and efficiently be done by helicopter. I think this side of the helicopter's use in the Army needs considerably study. It has many uses. One is the moving about of commanding officers; another is the evacuating of wounded from forward positions; then there is artillery spotting, which can be done by the helicopter, and, of course, there is the bringing up of ammunition in desperate situations. Here, again, it becomes more or less a tactical arm of the Army and might be considered from that point of view; but I should not like to go back to those old

509
days when one Service competed against another for a definite machine, and I would not advise anything but that the machine should be ordered through the Ministry of Supply, as are aeroplanes.
It was a long time before it happened but, eventually, military and civil aircraft went along on separate lines; and so here, with the helicopter, a divergence will quickly become apparent, for the reason that the jet engine and gas turbine engine will soon be used in the helicopter, and the noise is intolerable. I know quite well—and few will disagree with me on this point—that war is always a very noisy business, and a little more noise by helicopter can be tolerated. On the other hand, at a public dinner the other day I heard the Minister of Supply make a very wise remark, when he said that civil aviation must be civil—he was, of course, referring to the noise problem. It is true to say that when you knock air about very violently it always makes a noise. Noise is a very peculiar thing, because if you add two noises together you do not get twice the noise—all these odd things come in. But the study of diminishing the noise of a helicopter is something which should be investigated very thoroughly, because it is intolerable to have machines of the present noisy type coming down in the centre of our towns. I say, therefore, that silence, although not basic to a military machine, is basic and essential to a civil type of machine.
I hope that I have not by any word conveyed to your Lordships the idea that I think that the helicopter is safe at the present moment—I sometimes doubt whether the aeroplane is safe. But certainly at present it is not in a very advanced stage. I should consider the helicopter in about the same stage to-day as the motor car was during the 1,000 miles trials in 1900; it has a long way to go. What has been established is that, whereas the aeroplane shows itself to great advantage for very long hauls at high speeds and great heights, when it comes to the short haul then, due to terminal delays, the helicopter is the faster method of transport. The experts tell me that it is a faster form of transport up to a haul of about 350 miles, and it would be difficult to contradict that. In America, distances are of astronomical size, as I always think was
510
well illustrated in a story by O'Henry, which started:
"In Texas a man can walk in any direction a thousand miles."
Nobody can walk a thousand miles in our country in any direction. Compared with America, ours is a small country, so that the suitability of this machine is greater for us than it is for America.
If your Lordships look at the situation to-day you find that not only is America well ahead of us, but she is very active in development and production. I am, and always have been, a great admirer of the British aeroplane industry, but I maintain that on this subject a little more drive and activity is long overdue. There are some honourable exceptions. The great firm of Fairey is experimenting with a most revolutionary design which looks as if it might be satisfactory; but it will not be in production until 1960. The great firm of Bristol have done some noble work. They have produced a twin-rotor machine and others, but not even their greatest friends could ever accuse the firm of Bristol of being in a hurry. Westlands are the representatives of Sikorsky in this country. They have, I understand, one or two orders for a model called the S.55, which carries ten passengers, but they cannot get an order from the Government for the S.56, which carries twenty-six. I think they should be given that order immediately, because when we are backward it is better for us to start where the Americans have left off and perhaps improve later when we have gained the experience. All other machines of a revolutionary type are more or less gambles. One of our greatest firms is doing nothing at all with helicopters. It was this firm which the other day accused the industry of "timidity and complacency." A little self-analysis before such a general attack on their friends would not have been out of place.
I have a feeling that the great aeronautical armament firms should not just exist and prosper on Government orders, but should be prepared on their own to pioneer occasional private ventures. It is not that helicopters are wanted only for Government use; they are wanted the world over. Motor cars did not come about, and the motor car industry was not started, by Government orders and nothing else: the pioneers of the motor

511
car industry produced goods which they knew were wanted, and that is the way they grew up. Helicopters are wanted badly in all new countries throughout the world—where there are swamps, where there are jungles and where there are hills. That is the sort of place where they are wanted, and where they are capable of being bought. The Bell Company of America is producing sixty of their model 47 a month and they have produced 1,300 of them. Admiral de Witt, an American, appraising the general situation of helicopters, tells us that America already has an export market in helicopters to the value of 500 million dollars a year. We have no export in helicopters at all at the present moment. I cannot believe that that is a situation which your Lordships will find satisfactory in a country which is meant to lead the world in air matters.
I cannot close without just drawing attention to a new development along a similar line—namely, jet levitation which has been developed by the Rolls Company, with a machine called the "Bedstead." Here, of course, there are great new possibilities, relative to lifting an actual aeroplane, and consequently getting it into the air without runways. I cannot refrain from drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that a machine of that type needs no undercarriage; nor does it require flaps. Those particular items account for over 5 per cent. of the all-up weight of the aeroplane. So there is a great possibility in the development of that invention, which will have severe effects upon the design, the use and the desirability of these tremendous runways and airports which are fashionable to-day. I would remind your Lordships that the amount of concrete that has already been put into London Airport is more than would be required for a twin road thirty feet broad from London to Edinburgh. You will therefore appreciate the enormous size and expense of aerodromes.
This new technique may have profound consequences upon aeroplanes but I do not think that it clashes in any way with the rotary-winged auto-gyro, the helicopter. Both have their places. I should like to be rescued at sea by an ordinary helicopter, but I do not know whether I should like to be rescued by the Rolls type machine, with a red-hot blast com
512
ing down on me. I would rather be drowned than burnt. Those things probably will adjust themselves. My noble and gallant friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside and Mr. Peter Masefield have already said that within ten years all routes up to 200 miles will be run by multi-engined helicopters coming into the middle of the city. While on that point it seems regrettable that a man with the expert knowledge of my noble friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside cannot come to your Lordships' House and give his opinions on a proposal such as this. I see no reason why he cannot. He can write an article on the subject in the Daily Telegraph, but he cannot come and address your Lordships here. That seems a ludicrous situation. Those two people are the greatest experts we have, and that is their view of the subject.
We may be only at the beginning of an entirely new flying technique. It may well be that the very long haul at high speed will in future be taken by flying boats carrying up to 500 passengers and that the short haul will be done by the helicopter. I want to impress upon your Lordships that aeronautics is a very restless science and one must not think one has got to the end of anything. Trees do not grow to the skies, but aeronautics is still a very young plant, and it is difficult to assess the future. Of one thing I am perfectly certain: the modern aeroplane is not the last word. The requirement, first, of a runway a mile long, of 8 in. concrete, to enable the machine to get up into the air, and the fact that it touches down at over 100 miles an hour just will not do, though it may be all right for the present. How are we to galvanise the industry, and indeed their ally, the Government, to appreciate what is going on in other countries so that we outstrip them? It is no good for this little country to imitate people; if we are to export, we have to produce not only something, equal to other countries but something better. We have the talent, but somehow we do not seem to have the will to do it—that is the trouble. I am sorry to have to say this, because it is rather sad, but I am not at all happy at the situation. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, you will wish me in the first place to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for

513
moving this Motion and for the contribution that he has made. He has said that aeronautics is a very young subject, and indeed he himself exemplifies the fact, for he was the first British subject to fly and, as we have seen to-day, is very hale and hearty yet. I regret that the Motion is not drawn more widely, because the questions which the noble Lord has rightly raised with regard to the production of helicopters can equally be applied to fixed-wing aircraft for which we had such hopes in recent years. There are to-day, over the field of British aircraft design and production, disturbing features. It appears that British manufacturers who, through the genius of our inventors, started with such a fine lead, are falling badly behind. The plan was that we should have jet aircraft for long-distance, fast, first-class air travel, turboprops for middle distances or for slower tourist routes, and helicopters for distances up to 250 miles from city centre to city centre.
That was the post-war plan for British civil aviation. We can see to-day how that plan is failing to materialise. I will say nothing with regard to jet aircraft, because the Comet inquiry is in progress and it would not be proper for us to discuss any results that we think might come of it; but with regard to turboprop aircraft we have the satisfaction of knowing that the Viscount is doing well and is being used both by B.E.A. and by Air France. This winter Air France will use the Viscount on nearly all their European routes. We are-told that in 1956 the new Mark V. 802 will, it is hoped, be delivered to B.E.A. What of the Britannia? On that there is complete silence, except that we occasionally hear that one is having trials. Why is the Britannia not in the air? We find that B.O.A.C. is negotiating for at least ten Douglas D.C.7s and we are not given any satisfaction at all by the manufacturers in this country as to why at this stage the British Overseas Airways Corporation—a State corporation—should be going to the United States to buy a large number of American machines. These machines, though it is hard to realise, are themselves to be powered by British Rolls-Royce turbo engines. That is the pen-picture against which we must see the problem of the helicopter.
514
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, in an interesting article in this morning's Daily Telegraph already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, says:
"Within three or four years the Continental competitors of B.E.A. will want to fly helicopters into the centre of London and other large centres of population, and we must, I suggest, be in a position to match these competitive services. B.E.A. has foreseen this for some years, and in 1951 we put out to the British aircraft industry a specification for the type of helicopter that we require."
That specification was given three years ago.
"Briefly, this helicopter must be safe and must therefore have at least two engines and the ability to stay up if one engine fails; it must have a cruising speed of 150 m.p.h. over distances of the order of 250 miles; and must carry at least 45 passengers.
"Although several manufacturers are working on this problem there is little prospect of a British helicopter of this kind being ready for service for some years.
"On the other hand the Americans have two large helicopter prototypes already flying, the Sikorsky S.56 and the Piasecki H.16, able to carry 37 and 40 passengers respectively."
Silver City Airways Limited, a very enterprising private enterprise firm who, as many of your Lordships know, operate cross-Channel ferry routes, transferring car, motor bicycles and bicycles from one side of the Channel to the other, are going in for helicopters, and I understand that they have been given by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation permission to use helicopters on their cross-Channel air routes. For the next seven months they will be operating a series of noncommercial proving flights with a Westland-Sikorsky S.51 helicopter.
Now we come to the "flying bedstead," as Lord Brabazon of Tara called it—or, perhaps it would be more correct to say, as someone else called it, though the noble Lord referred to it by that name to-day. In this connection, the cat was let out of the bag by the former Minister of Transport, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, at a public dinner, rather to the surprise, I am told, of the makers of the "flying bedstead," Messrs. Rolls-Royce. But, whether that is so or not, this is very much a machine of the future. It is not likely for many years to come to subject Lord Brabazon of Tara to the uncomfortable situation of blasting him when he is struggling in the sea, because I do not think it is likely to be in operation for some time. The difficulty in the case of a machine of that

515
kind is not whether it will lift itself off the ground—it will do that easily enough—but whether you can control it when it is in the air. It is a machine very much of the future, and I do not think we need really consider it in the context of the Motion to-day.
Lord Brabazon of Tara has stated the principal uses of the helicopter in war and peace, and I would just refer to one matter which I do not think he mentioned, namely, the great benefit that can be derived from crop-spraying by helicopter. I read recently in a Colonial magazine a most interesting article on this subject which stated how important and useful the helicopter had proved in work in this particular field. And I would say that it has proved itself in more ways than that. The helicopter offers great promise for the future. It is going to be vital, I think, in relieving congestion on the roads. Already in this country, particularly in London, it is often quicker to walk than to ride on the roads. Usually it is far quicker to travel by "Tube," and we are really getting to the position when the motor car has ceased to have, in some large areas, the advantages of speed which it used to have. In almost all directions—even on the Great West Road and other roads of that kind—one finds oneself to-day in a continuous stream of traffic. The helicopter may well relieve that sort of congestion.
It will also, we hope, save valuable land. When I was Minister of Civil Aviation, one of my officials told me that the Ministry and the cemeteries were always competitors for the same land, and that the best land. And they were competitors for the same reason—it was flat land and well drained. There are other competitors—indeed there are too many competitors—for the limited amount of land which we have in this country. It has been said of the helicopter that noise would be a great deterrent to its use. But as Lord Winster, I think, said, quite rightly, in the early days of motor cars noise was a great deterrent. No doubt in time our inventors and technicians will be able to invent methods of overcoming this disadvantage. But one cannot overcome the disadvantage, if so you like to call it, of having helicopters land and take off from the centre of cities. That is one thing we shall have to agree
516
upon. If helicopters landed only at places on the edges of cities, a good deal of the virtue of this type of machine would be lost. We must find some way of ensuring that either on the tops of large buildings or in clear spaces in the centre of cities airports or airstops, as I believe they are called, are created and preserved for the use of helicopters.
There are a number of noble Lords with considerable knowledge of this subject to follow me, and I do not wish to speak at much greater length. But before I sit down I should like to ask a few questions of the noble Lord who, I understand, is to reply. First, what is the reason for the falling behind—the undoubted falling behind—of the British aircraft industry with aircraft generally, and in particular with regard to the helicopter? Who is to blame—if anyone is to blame? Are there shortages of men, materials or money? Is there anything the Government or local authorities or big industrial enterprises can do to help in this way? I agree entirely with Lord Brabazon of Tara that this is a situation that we as an industrial and exporting nation cannot tolerate. We cannot agree to the situation continuing as it is at the present time so far as helicopters are concerned. A suggestion which I have heard is to the effect that so far as helicopters are concerned what is needed here is more interest in them, more money for them, and more pressure on manufactures, as a whole, to provide them. Those should be the three pillars of this at present rickety temple.
At the present moment, as Lord Brabazon of Tara has pointed out, the helicopter is looked on in this country as a sort of offshoot from the big firm. Such a firm, if it has enough time, money, materials and men available, may devote them to this side-show. The Bristol Company is a case in point. They have been developing for some years a two-engined helicopter—a 12-seater. I saw the prototype three and a half years ago. It appears to make a little trip around at the Farnborough show every year and then to go into cocoon again, and we do not hear anything more about it. Why is this? Can the Government persuade manufacturers to take this matter up? As we have been told and as we all believe, there is a great future for the helicopter. The new Minister of

517
Supply, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, for years past has been wrestling with Mr. Vyshinsky at the United Nations Assembly. I sincerely hope that the vigour he exercised in dealing with Mr. Vyshinsky will now be redoubled in his grappling with an equally tough proposition—namely, the development and production of the British helicopter.
3.30 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the two speeches which we have just heard from the mover of the Motion and Lord Ogmore show clearly that this is a serious position in one of the most important branches of the aeronautical world which your Lordships could possibly consider to-day. The Motion draws attention to the urgent need for increased development of rotary winged aircraft. Now increased development can be stimulated only by pressure of demand from the persons or Departments that are going to be the chief users. I am sorry that, for what I have no doubt are good reasons, neither the Secretary of State for Air who represents the Department which is the greatest actual user, or potential user, of helicopters for some years to come, nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence have found themselves able to be here to-day. I hope my noble friend Lord Mancroft will particularly draw their attention to the powerful arguments that have been delivered by both the noble Lords, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Ogmore.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me, out of justice to my noble friends whom he mentioned, to tell him and the House that they are both inevitably out of the country to-day and cannot be here?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I did mention that they were absent for very good reasons, but this is a very important debate, and I would repeat again, with the greatest courtesy, and I am sure my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, will accept this remark in the spirit in which I make it, that he should draw the particular attention of his noble friends to what is said in this debate. I believe a situation is growing up which is comparable with the situation when
518
your Lordships debated some months ago the shortage of Service transport aircraft to serve Navy and Army needs and how America was ahead in the use of transport aircraft. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, pointed out, helicopters are in use in very great numbers in America—virtually in hundreds. Far front there being many helicopters in Britain, there are extremely few, whereas in America there are hundreds of helicopters in use for both military and civil purposes. I should think that in this country—and I am open to correction as regards my exact figures—there are probably fifteen civil helicopters and perhaps fifty military helicopters. I think it is important that we should recognise the great contrast which exists to-day in the helicopter position in Britain as compared to that in America. My noble friend, Lord Thurlow, who is going shortly to address your Lordships, will no doubt be able to say something on the need for helicopters in a field of operation with which he is particularly familiar. Undoubtedly one has but to talk to military experts back from Korea, Malaya and Kenya to hear on all sides of the shortage which exists at the present time of helicopters for Service use.
Of course, when one compares the American position with the British position, one knows that America has vastly greater financial resources than we have had available at the end of a terrible war. But not only have they more money; they have more experience. It is regret-able that we cannot repeat in the helicopter field the tremendous technical lead, with its economic advantages, which we have enjoyed and still enjoy in the production of jet engines. Whereas in the jet world Britain is supreme, in the helicopter world Britain is lagging behind. I think the reason why there is not an increased demand by the biggest potential user of helicopters—it is a very understandable reason and there is no blame attached to the Air Ministry—is that the Air Staff have a limited amount of money and they quite rightly concentrate their resources on what they consider from their point of view to be matters of greater importance—namely, combat types, fighters, bombers and other strategic and tactical aircraft requirements. Even for those requirements their resources are cut down by the Treasury, Now they are expected to devote some of

519
their inadequate resources to develop a requirement which they do not really want themselves and which is required by a sister Service, the Army. Understandably, therefore, the Air Staff put Army requirements fairly low in their line of priority.
I suggest to your Lordships that the Air Ministry, although the responsible Department, cannot put the drive and urge into helicopter ordering which they do into the ordering of other combat types. I would suggest the solution which was put forward in the debate in your Lordships' House on transport aircraft: that every Service should give up a certain amount of its money into a common pool for the development and purchase by the Air Ministry of helicopters which would satisfy the needs of the other Services for which the Air Ministry is responsible. If that were done, then I believe the Army requirement could be met, and there would be less crying for a separation from the Air Ministry of the use of helicopters and its handing over to the military. If the Air Ministry do not meet military requirements, then understandably there is a demand by the military staffs for independence from the Air Ministry. I believe it would be the Air Ministry's own fault if that happened in the future. But I repeat that their present position is understandable. I suggest that there should be a review of this matter, to see whether some common pool could be set up to which all three Services should contribute and from which the Air Ministry could supply the needs of the other two Services.
3.36 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I am glad to join with those noble Lords who have spoken in all that has been said in regard to helicopter development, and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who, in his very interesting speech, referred to the question of noise. I agree with him that much more could be done in that respect. As your Lordships will recollect, when from time to time my noble and gallant friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside has a machine passing your Lordships' House from South Bank there is a considerable noise. It is mainly exhaust noise, which certainly could be quelled, and I hope my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be able to assure the
520
House that the tests which are now taking place in the development of silencers for helicopter motors are going to be speeded up.
With regard to the question of landing facilities in addition to those already existing on the South Bank, it is to be hoped that the Government and the L.C.C. will give active consideration to other possibilities now before them, as, for example, the Hungerford Bridge potential and that of certain buildings which might be roofed over, subject to their being near the river, which is essential in present circumstances. For good reason, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said very little about the military side of the use of these aircraft, and I, too, say nothing, because we are to have the advantage of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who is on short leave from Kenya and will be able to say something about the aspect of these machines in use in Kenya and in Malaya. But I should like to say a word or two about the possibilities from the naval point of view. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, told your Lordships, the first production order ever to be given for helicopters was given during the war by our country to the United States, in 1942, and it was for some 250 R.5 type Sikorskys; but, for reasons of strategy that the noble Lord explained, those were not delivered to us. None the less, it was an order which started the development of that now substantial branch of the American aircraft industry engaged in the design and manufacture of helicopters.
About that time, in 1942, the Admiralty sent to the United States one of the leading pioneers in the flight and development of rotating wing machines, Wing Commander Brie, partly in connection with the order I have mentioned and partly in connection with some tests with helicopters which were carried out from one of His Majesty's ships, "Dagestan," in U.S.A. waters. Those tests of the wing commander's plan were extremely interesting, and they showed quite clearly that every merchant ship in a convoy could become an independent aircraft carrier. As such it is capable of providing an effective means of localised search for submarines or mine-infested areas. In this rôle, therefore, the

521
helicopter can provide a valuable adjunct to the normal frigate and destroyer escorts. This scheme of Wing Commander Brie, tested fairly extensively a number of years ago, should, I suggest, be taken up again, because there are still certain technical points that have to be proved with regard to the arrester gear, and so forth, when the helicopter lands on the stern of the merchant ship in rough weather.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, paid tribute—and no too high tribute can be paid—to that great pioneer, De la Cierva. The noble Lord also said that a large part of that inventor's work, the development of the autogyro, was done in this country. As one of the volunteer workers in that particular line of development, perhaps I might be allowed to remind your Lordships that that was rendered possible entirely by a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Weir of Eastwood, and in particular, by his far-sighted brother, Mr. J. G. Weir, one of the first pioneers of flying. They made possible this substantial development of the autogyro from the designs of De la Cierva. A number of machines were manufactured in this country and exported to different parts of the world. I would say that from a technical point of view—and it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—but for the success of the autogyro here, the helicopter would not be where it is to-day. A Member of your Lordships' House has played a vital part in that development.
A final point to which I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to give attention—perhaps he may have something to say on it—is the vital need for a pilot training establishment. There is no effective training establishment for helicopter pilots to-day, something akin to what used to exist, like Air Services Training at Hamble. A school is vitally required. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to the work of the Westland Company, and they will train pilots for their own machines. But there are no proper training facilities here, and therefore it is difficult for those who design and construct helicopters here, and want to sell them, to complete a sale because of the lack of training, facilities. In conclusion—and I am sure these words would be re-echoed by all your Lord
522
ships —I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on his new office, and we shall listen to him with great attention since he addresses us in that office for the first time this afternoon.
3.45 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, as a serving officer home, as you have heard, for a short visit from one of the operational theatres, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has raised this most important question in the House to-day. The Army have for a long time been examining the numerous uses to which rotary winged aircraft can be put, particularly in speeding administration and movement. The immense possibilities offered by the characteristics of helicopters are fully appreciated—indeed, our Chief of the Imperial General Staff is probably the biggest user and the most travelled passenger in helicopters in England. But I am doubtful whether in this country development and trials have kept up with the study and the theory. Certainly in Korea the Commonwealth Division has been on occasions entirely supplied by helicopters, but all the machines and all the pilots were American. A former Commander of the Commonwealth Division told me only today that he was unable to secure a helicopter for his own use during the whole time he was out there, and he had to depend on the kindness and help of our American Allies.
My job is the command of an infantry brigade in Kenya, and for over a year we have been trying to get one helicopter—only one for all the security forces there—to be used to evacuate casualties from the trackless forests and the mountains where we operate in pursuit of Mau Mau gangs. For some time we were told that no rotary winged aircraft had been invented that could take off with even one passenger at 8,000 feet, which is the average height of our operations. Only a month ago one of my officers was severely wounded in the forest. He was shot through the body in a clash with a Mau Mau gang at 3.30 in the afternoon, and we did not get him out of the forest until 11 o'clock the next day. Incidentally, we should not have got him out as soon as that, had it not been for our American light aircraft, manned by British pilots of the Kenya Police Reserve, which brought us news of the action. That light aircraft was able to contact the

523
patrol by wireless, bring us back the information and then go out and drop the necessary medical supplies. Even then, the two stretchers so dropped fell on the top of trees and could not be brought down. The officer suffered a great deal of pain during the difficult operation of getting him out of the forest to proper medical attention. If we had had a helicopter, we could have landed one quite close, and he would have been in hospital within an hour of being wounded.
We have been most fortunate in Kenya in so far having had very few casualties in the forest, but I do not conceal from your Lordships the fact that that is my greatest anxiety in my present command. We have been told that one rotary winged aircraft has now been found with the requisite performance; but nine months have elapsed since we heard this, and the machine had not arrived when I left Kenya a fortnight ago. I do not want in any way to be critical of the Government and the Ministries and services who administer us there, because the immense help we get at every turn, for every possible requirement, is most encouraging, and this is the only thing that we have failed to get. I know that it is not for the want of a great deal of trying by a great many people, but this is an important matter. Therefore, I hope, as it would appear to be a fault in the lack of development, or the lack of progress in development, that the noble Lord who is to wind up for the Government will be able to tell us what authority is responsible for development in this field, and to reassure us that adequate funds are available.
I believe that the Royal Navy are working for themselves in this matter. I understand that the helicopters being used to such good purpose in Malaya were made for the Royal Navy, and were, I believe, stolen in some cunning way by Sir Gerald Templer. I suppose that other developments for the Services are being carried out by the R.A.F. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that if special funds are not made available, we in the Army cannot expect the R.A.F., who are trying so hard and with such great success to keep up with developments in other countries, developments costing a great deal of money, in making our Air Force the best in the world, to set aside very much to help us
524
along in this problem. I should like to add that if we had had helicopters in Kenya in recent months, I am quite certain that we could have done a great deal more damage to the Mau Mau by using the machines offensively and in that way helping to end the present emergency. There is undoubtedly an urgent need for much greater effort in development and production in this important field of aviation.
3.51 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I first of all join other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for bringing this matter before the attention of your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, it is on occasions such as this that your Lordships' House is perhaps at its best, for the subject is non-political and non-Party, and every speaker up to the present has been wholly objective. I find myself in complete agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said, and also with what my noble friend Lord Ogmore has said. Who better to say what he did than the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara? He has always been years ahead in his thinking upon these subjects. He is quite right, and so is my noble friend Lord Ogmore.
The helicopter is the short-haul vehicle of the future, but the future of the helicopter rests completely and entirely on its ability to land in the middle of congested areas. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, likened it to the three-ton lorry of the future. My plea this afternoon will be that every effort should be made, not only by the Government but by the industry, not to start off this great invention of the future with public prejudice. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—and he was supported by my noble friend Lord Ogmore—mentioned what I think is the most important thing; that is, noise. Noise of aircraft is fast becoming the scourge of our modern life, and it is amazing that so little thought is being given to it, not only by the aircraft production industry but also by our scientific bodies.
I followed with great interest the proceedings of the British Association at Oxford recently. The Association discussed every possible subject from life in the atomic age of 2,000 years to come, to

525
thumb-sucking and its effects on the modern age. But I could not find one word spoken towards the scientific examination of the elimination of noise. There is no technical difficulty in silencing an aircraft engine, especially an internal combustion engine, and I speak from a one-time experience of engineering. The jet may present a little more difficulty, but I can only think that the reason why there has been no real thought given to silencing aircraft is because there has been no compulsion about it. My noble friend Lord Ogmore was quite right when he drew attention to the noise of the motor car years ago. We then had the sense to look to the future, because it was in 1912 when the first Construction and Use Regulation was made, prohibiting noisy vehicles on the roads of this country. I wonder whether your Lordships would like to speculate upon what life in London or in this country would be like to-day with 5 million motor vehicles on the roads (the numbers coming on the roads are now about half a million a year), all with blaring open exhausts. I do not know whether any of us would be alive.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, my noble friend Lord Ogmore and other noble Lords have forecast that this will be the problem of the future. The recent experience of a few helicopters flying over to the South Bank was sufficient to raise a public protest. Unless something is done about this question of noise, public opinion will handicap this new development from the start. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara whether, from his eminent position as Chairman of the Air Registration Board—an independent body set up by the Government that has to give a certificate of airworthiness to all aircraft—he would think it a proper function to say that no aircraft shall be considered airworthy unless it conforms to certain degrees of silence. The aircraft industry have been forced to silence their aircraft, or to insulate their passengers from noise, because if they did not they would never get anybody to go in the machines.
I do not mind what they do over the middle of the Atlantic. They can make as much noise as they like there, and they can make as much noise as they like over deserts. But public patience is wearing a little thin over the terrific noise of low-flying aircraft in this country. I
526
shall have something more to say on this subject on another occasion, and I will only impress this upon the noble Lord who is to reply. Could he give your Lordships' House art assurance that Her Majesty's Government will act energetically upon this question of the suppression of aircraft noise? It may be possible to follow the example adopted with the motor industry, because, as I say, forty years ago it was an offence to allow a noisy motor vehicle on the roads of this country. I feel certain that public opinion will support any action of that kind, and, in the last analysis, public opinion will be very anti-helicopter if it has to look to a future in which we have these terrifically noisy machines coming down in the middle of the congested areas. And unless they do, the helicopter loses its whole value. I could not help smiling to myself when I picked up the Sunday Times last Sunday and saw a letter from a well-known gentleman inquiring what was the origin of a text he found hanging up in a certain bedroom which he had occupied. William Morris had lived in the house, and he wondered whether he was the author of these lines:
"Blessed be His name who hath appointed the quiet night to follow the busy day, and the calm sleep to refresh the wearied limbs and to compose the troubled spirit."
I cannot satisfy the writer's curiosity by telling him the name of the author of the lines, but I am prepared to wager a good amount of money that I could tell him two gentlemen who did not compose it. One is the Minister of Civil Aviation and the other the Secretary of State for Air.
4.0 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is a chastening thought to me that this debate should have been initiated in your Lordships' House by a man who first flew an aeroplane just over five years before I was born. I must apologise to your Lordships for not having that expertise which has been displayed in this interesting debate. My sole practical knowledge of the subject is confined to one journey in a helicopter in a very high wind. I disliked it intensely, and I was told that for some time afterwards I was a good deal quieter than usual. I must also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who would obviously have preferred either the Secretary of State for Air or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to reply to this

527
debate. My noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley is on duty in Canada, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is recovering from a serious operation, but I will do my best to answer some of the questions which have been put to me in this debate. I think that enough has been said so far to echo public interest in this subject, an interest stimulated, of course, by recent affairs in Malaya, by last year's flood disasters and, on a much lower plane, by the general indignation at the time it takes to get from the Waterloo Air Terminal to London Airport.
This debate has ranged sufficiently wide to demonstrate to anybody who is a stranger to the subject that this means of transport is revolutionary. Potentially the helicopter can operate almost without restriction between any points in an area, limited only by its range, always provided—and I emphasise this point—that its complicated maintenance requirements and supplies of fuel can be assured, and, of course, that its operations can be fitted in with those of other users of the air space. It can fulfil many rôles which fixed-wing aircraft cannot. As has been pointed out, in these islands the opportunities are great because geographical conditions are exceptionally favourable. I was also glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mention the use of the helicopter in the Commonwealth and Dominions. Her Majesty's Government believe that there is a great future for helicopters in the Commonwealth. Already they have played a notable part in opening up mineral resources in the remotest parts of Canada. In Australia, they may well supplement or replace the cowboy's horse or "the flying doctor'" light aeroplane. In our island possessions such as the West Indies there must be great opportunities for the use of helicopters for speedy communications. Oil prospecting, forest fire patrols, whaling and fishing, aerial photography and survey, cable laying—the field is almost limitless for the use of this particular type of aircraft.
On the other hand, I think I must make this point fairly early on: in considering the general use of helicopters for passenger transport, we must bear in mind that they will have to be economic, which they are not at the moment. One of the keenest supporters of the helicopter
528
Mr. Peter Masefield, of British European Airways, said the other day that we must beware of being what the B.E.A. call, neatly but rather nastily, "helicoptermists." And even with the most advanced American machines the economic fare from London to Birmingham would have to be about £5, compared with the first-class rail fare which was £1 4s. 6d. when I looked it up this morning—I hope that it has not gone up since. I think that a balanced view of helicopter prospects (I apologise for the cliché), is the justified one.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, referred to the military uses of the helicopter. Let me say a few words on that aspect. The War Office are well aware of the importance of increasing mobility and relieving congestion, and they are examining with the Air Staff the extent to which air transport is likely to be a practical, efficient and economic means of achieving this end. Your Lordships will probably have seen in the papers in the last few days mention of an experimental unit for Army air transport which has been set up at Old Sarum for this purpose, and which will be equipped initially with helicopters. Until we have had some experience and practical information from this experiment it should not be too readily assumed that the helicopter is the answer to all the Army's supply problems. Economics will be an important factor. A helicopter to lift five tons will cost anything up to £150,000, compared with roughly £4,000 for a 5-ton truck, while a fixed-wing aeroplane of the same capacity would cost approximately three-fifths of the helicopter cost.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I cannot let that remark go by without interrupting: £4,000 for a 5-ton truck? I should be surprised if it were half that price.
LORD MANCROFT: I also was surprised when I was told that figure, but I checked it and am told that the new truck, with all the refinements for which the Army has asked, will indeed cost £4,000. On the other hand, there has to be considered the greater amount of work that the helicopter can do in a given time.
I hope that I have said enough so far to convince your Lordships that we are as aware of the opportunities as we are

529
of the difficulties and are pursuing a logical programme of helicopter development aimed at both civil and military needs. The fact that during the war no helicopter development was possible here has inevitably left the United Kingdom with a lot of leeway to make up, compared with the United States; I think that is a point which, in all fairness, ought to be made. The Westland-built S. 51 and S. 55, which were of American origin, performed a valuable service in the period before British designs became available and have assisted building up experience in the operation and handling of helicopters.
Our policy has been and is, broadly, on two lines: first, the development of the gear-driven helicopter to provide reliable single and multi-engined machines for service and civil use. Into this category fall the small Saunders-Roe Skeeter, and the Bristol 171 which is now flying with a Certificate of Airworthiness, as well is in service in some numbers with the Royal Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy. From this has been derived the Bristol 173, the first twin-engined, twin-rotor helicopter in the world to go into production, and which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has seen from time to time in fleeting appearances, he tells us, at Farnborough. He will be interested to hear, therefore, that Service orders for about a hundred of this machine have been placed, particularly for the anti-submarine rôle for the Navy, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, also referred.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interesting piece of information. Can he give us any indication as to when the orders are likely to be supplied?
LORD MANCROFT: Production is going ahead as fast as possible, but I cannot give a firm date that will satisfy the noble Lord. Subsequently, it is intended to proceed to a version with gas-turbine engines, which should yield a helicopter with twenty-seven seats, for short stages, or twelve seats for longer stages.
The second line of our helicopter policy is a research programme on reaction-less rotor systems, aimed particularly at meeting the longer-term demand for
530
faster, simpler and larger and more economical machines. Two main projects are included in this programme, the Fairey Rotodyne and the Hunting-Percival gas-turbine helicopter. The Rotodyne is intended to explore two new principles—the use of wing-mounted turbo-prop engines for forward propulsion, with the rotor rotating by itself and part of the load borne by the wings; and the use of rotor-mounted jet units, drawing compressed air from the turbo-prop engines, to give reaction-less drive for take-off and landing. I hope that that statement conveys a certain amount of information to those noble Lords who are more fitted to receive it than I am.
The Rotodyne is at present only a research aircraft, but the size and power of the first prototype have been chosen so that the minimum of further expenditure and delay will be needed to adapt the design to meet expected requirements, including the specification for a 40-seater helicopter drawn up by British European Airways. The Ministry of Supply have recently ordered a second Rotodyne prototype in order to accelerate this development, and we have high hopes that it will be able to compete successfully with any other helicopter in the world—and over distances up to at least 100 miles with fixed-wing aircraft. We hope that this machine will also meet the Army's requirements for a transport helicopter. The Hunting-Percival research helicopter embodies another form of reaction-less drive which might be applicable to civil aircraft; this, however, is at present only a small research aircraft. In addition the Ministry of Supply are undertaking a growing programme of fundamental research in connection with helicopters, both in the Ministry's own establishments and in industry. Further, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Supply jointly are bearing the greater part of the annual cost of the helicopter experimental unit which is operated by B.E.A. This unit will help to find solutions to the problems of air traffic control and navigational aids peculiar to helicopter operation, and will therefore pave the way for the introduction on scheduled services of larger helicopters when these become available.
My Lords, we have been talking a good deal this afternoon about money. The increasing amounts of public money

531
being devoted to this work illustrate to your Lordships, I hope in a practical way, the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to helicopters. The amount spent in 1951 was £290,000. This was doubled in 1952, doubled again in 1953, and is being doubled yet again this year, when it is estimated to amount to more than £2½ million. Next year it may well be higher still. I hope these figures will convince your Lordships that there is little basis in the argument sometimes advanced, and by one or two speakers this afternoon, that Her Majesty's Government are fainthearted in their helicopter policy. But I think it is only fair to add this: that we must beware of putting too many of our unfortunately limited financial eggs into the helicopter basket. After all, there are other developments of at least equal promise on the way, and they must be supported—for example, the techniques of blowing air at high speed over the wings or out of the flaps of fixed wing aircraft are expected to give remarkable improvements in landing and take-off distances, a matter which has been rightly accentuated as an important point this afternoon. There is also, of course, vertical take-off or jet-lift to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and Lord Ogmore have referred. This machine, which is I think very aptly described as a "flying bedstead," is really a research machine to examine the basic control problems of vertical take-off. The machine has flown freely at heights of up to 25 feet or more, and I think that will still be a little uncomfortable for Lord Brabazon of Tara's purpose.
A great deal of investigation, development and testing will be needed before these principles could be applied to the design of a useful aircraft either for military or civil purposes. This is an even newer development than the helicopter, and there are therefore even more problems to be solved. I am given to understand that it seems likely that jet-lift aircraft will always require more power than helicopters for the same lifting capacity and that they will therefore be more suited to high speed rôles. However, it is much too early to define the part each is likely to play in the transport system of the future. That being so, surely we must not dissipate so much of our money on helicopters that we have none left for vertical take-off.
532
The Government have every intention of pressing on with all speed with this revolutionary development; and although, as many noble Lords have appreciated, it cannot have any immediate effect, its possible repercussions in the long term on aerodrome requirements will be constantly kept in mind. Those who criticise the Government's helicopter policy are sometimes apt to avoid specific points of criticism or recommendation and to content themselves with expressing a general malaise about the rate of helicopter progress in this country. I hope he will not mind my saying so because he has to be silent this afternoon and is unable to defend himself at this moment, but I have sometimes thought that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, has tended in that direction. He has frequently pointed out that British helicopter design is lagging seriously behind American progress, although in his more recent remarks he has tended to be a little more moderate.
LORD DOUGLAS OF KIRTLESIDE: If the noble Lord will allow me, I should like to say that there are variations in the depths of one's pessimism, but he must not take it that I am at all optimistic about the present progress or development of helicopters in this country.
LORD MANCROFT: I had rather gathered that from the noble Lord's recent pronouncements. What he has been saying is undeniably a statement of the position to-day. We are not too proud to admit it. We have plenty to learn from American experience. But I think the noble and gallant Lord would also agree, would he not, that the reason is not altogether lack of enterprise on the part of the aircraft firms, as several noble Lords have suggested. I think one must do justice to the fact that between 1939 and 1946 no helicopter development of any significance was possible in this country, very much unlike what was possible in America. Thereafter, while the Americans have been able to place vast orders and spend vast sums, United Kingdom progress has been impeded by a lack of production orders. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Supply undertook in advance of user requirements a reasonable and balanced programme of helicopter development. Had this programme not been started until user interest became

533
keen, we should not now be able to look forward to a day not very far removed when helicopters of British design and manufacture will be available to meet all the principal requirements for them. My Lords, I think we can look forward to that day with confidence.
Another point which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, has made recently, referred to the possibility that when British European Airways started their network of domestic and short-range routes with their helicopter bus, it might have to be with one of two American machines which appeared to meet B.E.A.'s requirements—I presume he was referring to the Piasecki Y.H.16 and the Sikorsky S.56. I think we in this country are somewhat inclined to focus our attention, in the case of our own projects, on problems and difficulties that have still to be overcome, but to assume, in the case of other countries' projects, that all is plain sailing. No doubt, the S.56 to which I have just referred, which comes from a famous stable (if that is not a mixed metaphor) will be a good helicopter of its class and for the purposes for which it was designed. However, it is at present going ahead as a project specifically for the United States Marines. No civil version of this machine yet exists and a substantial amount of further development work will be needed before an economic civil machine, free from certain handicaps inherent in its military design, is available. I mention this point merely because statements are sometimes made suggesting that civil services with S.56 helicopters might be operating in Europe as early perhaps as 1956.
LORD DOUGLAS OF KIRTLESIDE: I think 1958 is the year I have mentioned.
LORD MANCROFT: That, I realise, is the view of the noble and gallant Lord, but I saw the statement last week—I deliberately did not attribute this one to him—that 1956 is the date. I think the noble and gallant Lord agrees with me that that is much too optimistic. I believe that on a realistic comparison, the time gap between the S.56 in a tried civil form and our own Rotodyne will not be as large as some people think. A civil version of the Piasecki machine is even further off than the S.56.
LORD DOUGLAS OF KIRTLESIDE: At least those two aircraft are flying now. The Rotodyne will not be in the air for another two or three years.
LORD MANCROFT: I quite appreciate that point, but I believe that the gap will be much shorter than most people think.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord is making a very optimistic series of statements, all of which really are "pie in the sky." In view of our experience in regard to the Britannia, for instance, what right has he to say, as he has just said to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, with all his experience, that it will be much sooner than anybody else expects? Why should we expect that it will be sooner? Are we not entitled to expect that it will be much longer?
LORD MANCROFT: Of course, these are all matters of opinion; these are only forecasts, and I shall state only my opinion.
LORD OGMORE: But on what evidence?
LORD MANCROFT: On the evidence of the progress made in America on this machine and the progress made in this country; but of course it is only an estimate. I have not been putting my mind to the question of the Britannia, but I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had to say. I should like to take further advice before following his pessimistic view on the Britannia.
LORD OGMORE: I fully appreciate the noble Lord's personal position, but, after all, he is answering for the Government here and the Britannia is a case in point. We were all led to expect years ago that the Britannia was going to do great things and would be in the air in considerable quantity now or very shortly. That at least was my understanding. Yet to-day we hear nothing, or very little, about the Britannia. Are we entitled to expect any more of the optimistic statements now being made by the Minister on behalf of the Government? We are not attacking the noble Lord personally. I appreciate his own position, but I should like an answer from the Government as to the evidence on which the noble Lord is now basing his statements.
LORD MANCROFT: That is not a fair comparison. The information available to the Ministry from the firms themselves justifies the opinion I have just expressed: that we do not think the delay will be so long as some people suggest it may be. I merely state that I do not think that the pessimism felt in certain quarters is justified. I do not want to be tied down more closely.
Turning now to a less controversial question, noise, I am only disappointed that it has not happened, as in the past, that a helicopter has flown over the House in the course of our debate to make all observations on this nuisance self-explanatory. There has been considerable concern, quite nightly and understandably, on the question of noise. The helicopter of to-day is undoubtedly a noisy brute. I know that people said originally that the motor car made such a noise that we should never get used to it. And when Clapham Junction railway station was built it was widely held that the noise would be so intolerable that no one would be able to live there. I am never very convinced by those arguments. If I am told that I must get used to the noise of jet aircraft I want to be convinced that it really is inevitable. I shall have to be a great deal more convinced than I am now that we really have to accept the noise which the helicopter makes.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, quoted my noble friend the previous Minister of Supply, who observed that civil planes are expected, so far as possible, to behave in a civil manner. Her Majesty's Government have already announced that a considerable programme of theoretical and experimental work is being undertaken into this problem. Most of this is of general application, but aspects of it peculiar to helicopters are being vigorously investigated by the industry, by the National Physical Laboratory and by the University of Southampton. Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to this problem, because they believe that until it is at least substantially overcome public reaction may delay, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested, if not prevent, the full exploitation of those characteristics which give the helicopter its greatest advantages, in particular the ability to operate in and out of city
536
centres. We shall continue to press designers and manufacturers to intensify their efforts with such support from public funds as may be necessary. The planned operation by B.E.A. of a scheduled helicopter service from London Airport into central London should provide valuable information about the level and character of noise in built-up areas from helicopter operations and about public reaction to it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do I understand that the noble Lord, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, is expressing the view that civil aircraft should be silent? Would he extend that to Service aircraft as well in peace time, because they are a bigger nuisance to-day than ever civil aircraft ever could be? Will research into the noise of engines be confined to civil aircraft or will be extended also to military aircraft?
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that I cannot say, without notice of the question, whether research is being made into military as well as civil aircraft, but I should imagine that the general principle is much the same. Has not the noble Lord a Question about this subject on the Order Paper for the near future?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Relating to it.
LORD MANCROFT: Perhaps the noble Lord can go into it in more detail when the time comes, as he has, I believe, a personal interest with which I entirely sympathise. I want to make perfectly clear to your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government are particularly anxious about this point, and will do everything in this difficult task to try to solve a problem which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has pointed out, may seriously prejudice the popularity and thus the development of the helicopter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and to other noble Lords who have participated in this debate, for giving me an opportunity to make what I hope has been a fairly comprehensive, though rather long, statement of the Government's views on helicopter development policy, and to demonstrate how ill-founded are some of the cniticisms commonly voiced on this subject. Sometimes these seem to be voiced on behalf

537
of a small number of people who are prepared to "pay the earth" to get from Southampton to the Savoy in time for lunch. That is a protest frequently voiced and tends to throw other more serious problems out of balance. Her Majesty's Government are not particularly concerned to spend large sums of public money solely on that type of complaint or on meeting the needs of those people. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that there are other more important requirements to be considered.
I hope that I have also satisfied your Lordships' House that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is both balanced and realistic. Naturally we could do a very great deal more if we had unlimited funds available. That is true in every field of endeavour. But first things must be put first. We must balance the claims of helicopter development against those of fixed-wing aircraft and of more revolutionary developments, such as vertical take-off, the "Flying Bedstead." and of engine development on which so much depends, within the total amount of money it is reasonable for a country in our position to spend on aeronautical research and development. It is the Government's claim that we have picked the most important and promising lines to follow and that in these selected fields we shall before long catch up with, if not pass, the United States. We are neither complacent nor over-optimistic. Given that funds are not unlimited, and that serious technical doubts were felt in the early days, it is not unreasonable that at first we hastened slowly. Now that the way ahead is clearer, Her Majesty's Government are showing their faith in the future of helicopters by the substantial sums they are devoting to helicopter development, by the production orders they have placed, and by the interest they are displaying, and will continue to display, in the whole subject of helicopters.
4.28 p.m
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, may I say first, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who wanted to put "on the plate" of the Air Registration Board a new duty, that they should not give a certificate of air-worthiness unless an aeroplane was silent, that we have quite enough to do without that. I am sure noble Lords will agree
538
with me that it is always a delight to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, speak. I prefer the speeches which he makes up in his own mind, rather than those which are given to him, as this was. We seem to be told of most remarkable things which are going to happen some time, but meanwhile nothing happens at all. I should have been more satisfied to hear that we were going to import a couple of Piaseckis and some Sikorskys. Let us now start with something that the others have made and try to improve it. All these hypothetical experiments in years to come are not very impressive. However, I should not like to say that the noble Lord has not done well: I do not wish to try to censure anyone. All I can say, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion, is that I do not go home, and nor does anyone else, feeling joyous over the present situation. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MIS CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
4.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
"3. In considering the needs of the area as required under section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to the running of unremunerative services and the convenience of the public, a licensing authority shall have power to attach to any licence to run a particular service the condition that the applicant shall also undertake to run some other additional service or services and the grant of a licence to run the particular service for which application has been made shall thereafter be conditional on the applicant also running such additional service or services; and in fixing the fares appropriate to such additional service or services the licensing authority shall have regard to the entire remuneration likely to be received by the undertaker for the whole of the area."
The noble Lord said: Before the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill reproves me for attempting to move an Amendment which is not in strict accordance with the Title of the Bill, may I draw his attention to the words that have just fallen from the lips of the Lord Chairman, "That the Title of the Bill be postponed"? The reason for that is that if your Lordships desire to pass an Amendment which is not in strict accordance with the Title though it is in strict accordance with the subject matter of the Bill, your Lordships can alter the Title later.
I have put down this Amendment for the consideration of the Committee because I am seriously concerned as to where the position is getting with regard to the proper provision of public transport on what are called "unremunerative routes." The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will call readily to his mind that when the Transport Bill, which has since become the Transport Act, 1953, was going through your Lordships' House, I opposed quite strongly Clause 18—now Section 18 of the Act. That clause sought to compel the British Transport Commission to divest itself of all of its holdings in bus companies in this country where it held a majority of the shares. The noble Earl will readily recall how I contested that proposal at every stage, and how I asked him where the services on the unremunerative routes were to come from and what kind of law was to be passed that would compel a private enterprise company to run at a loss. The only way it is possible to run a public service of passenger transport—and this has been proved conclusively—is to establish a sufficiently large monopoly so that, in the very vivid phrase which was used by my noble friend Lord Mathers at the time, "the fat may fry the lean." You cannot expect that anyone is going to run an unremunerative bus service in a rural area unless he is also given permission to operate, and to enjoy the profitability of, a very remunerative route somewhere else. That was the whole object of the passenger transport provisions of the 1947 Act, trying to spread the load.
I am very apprehensive that, with the conditions which face us to-day, with the rising costs of petrol, labour and other
540
things, the unremunerative routes of this country, as the Thesiger Report clearly sets out, will be liable to diminish and will certainly not increase. There has got to be in this modern life a "postalisation"—if I may use such an expression—of public services. You must give the dwellers in rural areas the opportunity of enjoying the amenities of the towns. You cannot take the amenities of the town to the country dweller. It is a serious matter because, unless this is done, the whole economic pattern of this country will be upset; there will be a greater influx into large cities and a further drift away from the land.
The facts are incontrovertible—the Thesiger Report sets them out very clearly. But there is no redress for an area without a service. There is no authority in this country that can compel the running of a service of an unremunerative route. The licensing authority has no authority to do it. The licensing authority can grant a licence to operate a route only when an application is made to it for permission to do so. So the arbiter as to whether the rural dweller gets a bus service or not is the concern which expects to make a profit out of it. And I do not blame any concern—any private enterprise concern—for not making an application to run a service which is sometimes not going to cover its cost. And yet it is essential that the people of that area should have a service. So I have put down this Amendment to give the licensing authority the power to impose the condition upon the applicants for a licence to run a service from A to B that they must at the same time run a service from C to D, and, when fixing fares, take into consideration the profitability of services over the entire area. I know of no other authority that is competent to do it. There must be some arbiter.
If your Lordships will be kind enough—perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will do this—to turn to Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, I would direct your attention to subsection (3) (d). This is the section which sets out the duties of what were called "the commissioners." Originally in the Act of 1930, traffic commissioners were appointed whose duty it was to see that the area covered had a reasonable service. The 1947 Act changed their title from regional traffic commissioners to licensing authorities,

541
The section says, amongst other details, that in granting road licences the commissioners shall have regard to
"(d) the needs of the area a whole in relation to traffic (including the provision of adequate, suitable and efficient services, the elimination of unnecessary services and the provision of unremunerative services), …"
If the noble Earl will turn to the last three or four lines of subsection (4) of the section, he will see that
"the commissioners may attach to a road sere vice licence such conditions as they may think fit with respect to the matters to which they are required to have regard under the preceding subsection"—
that is what I have just read out—
"… and generally for securing the safety and convenience of the public; …"
Among licensing authorities there is a division of opinion as to whether, under existing law, the licensing authorities have powers to compel the running of unremunerative services. The noble Earl is a barrister of distinction—I am not—and he will tell me whether I am putting a fair construction on this provision. The law has never been tested in this regard, because the only people who can bring a test case are the Ministry of Transport, and I know that the Ministry of Transport do not put the same construction as I am now putting upon this clause. So, to make it perfectly clear, I have put down this Amendment giving the licensing authorities the powers which I think they should have. I think that is a very reasonable request.
It has been argued, in defence of bus operators, and the case of the big operators is always cited, that they run a large number of unremunerative services, but I know that it does not always happen that way. In this regard I have criticised the British Electric Traction, the second biggest monopoly in road transport to the British Transport Commission. The economics of road transport are becoming such that rural areas are getting a worse service than they have ever had. I want to establish the principle, with which I am sure the noble Earl will agree, that we must give an adequate service in rural areas. I know that there may be a great deal of argument about what an adequate service is; but somebody has to decide, and it should not be the person who is going to provide the service. It should be an independent authority who has power under the Act to spread the cost over remunerative routes. Let me say
542
plainly that the urban dweller has to carry some of the cost of providing the rural dweller with a transport service—and I hold the same view with regard to the Post Office services.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I cited the case of the City of Oxford Motor Services who, on the grounds that they could not add to their unremunerative services, refused to run a service which I thought was necessary in an area six miles from Oxford. I criticised them severely, because only six miles from the city this large area of Frilford Heath and Cothill was isolated from the city's cultural and other amenities. I want to tell your Lordships frankly the sequel to my speech. As your Lordships know, was once Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and as such I knew intimately all the licensing authorities. I enlisted the aid of the licensing authority of the area concerned, who in turn approached the City of Oxford Motor Services. There followed a general consultation between the licensing authority, the City of Oxford Motor Services and myself, and the result has been that that area is now going to have an adequate service run on an experimental basis for a period of time. That qualification is a perfectly fair thing for me to accept. But it should not be left to me to draw attention to such a matter because I happen to be a member of your Lordships' House and had in the past an official relationship with the licensing authority. May I add, with perhaps not very great modesty, that I cannot go round the country persuading bus companies and licensing authorities to meet such needs? It should not be left to anybody with sufficient influence to make his voice heard to see that rural dwellers have the service they need. I thought I should mention this matter to-day because I had severely criticised the City of Oxford Motor Services and I should like to pay tribute to the ready way in which the company met my request when we were able to get down to detailed discussion.
I have explained why I put down this Amendment. I am not tied to the wording, or to its position in the Bill. I do not know whether the Amendment makes it clear that the licensing authority will be able to grant a licence for a service on an experimental basis, with

543
the proviso that if, after a fair trial period, the operator can go back to the licensing authority and say that he has tried out the service and that the return is so low that it would unfairly load the remunerative services with loss, the licensing authority will be able to withdraw the service. One difficulty is that once a licensing authority issues a licence for a service to be run, it does not like to withdraw the service, and it has to be proved beyond peradventure that it is completely uneconomic. I think this is a perfectly fair request, which would meet a need of rural areas which is certainly not being met to-day. I have been rather long, but I wanted to explain what I consider to be the logic of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD HURCOMB: Before the noble Earl replies, may I make one of two comments? From my own experience, which has extended over a good many years, I know that the licensing authorities were always doubtful about their position in this matter. My own view, though I am no lawyer and have never taken authoritative advice on the point, is that the section of the 1930 Act to which reference has been made expressed the undoubted intention that the licensing authorities should be able to require the provision of an unremunerative service as part of the price for the very lucrative and widespread semi-monopolies which were conferred upon the undertakers. However that may be, differences did exist, and the licensing authorities felt themselves always on weak ground. There is, I believe, a point to be made, because, again in my own experience, cases did occur where a great company refused to provide an admittedly unremunerative service but which was a necessary service of a lucrative network. Perhaps the Government would be prepared to look again at the point, which has been in the mind of the Department for a great many years, and see whether the hands of the licensing authorities cannot be strengthened in some way. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, he is not wedded to the wording of this Amendment, and I feel that the point he has in mind may require a little more
544
than he suggests here. It is rather to the general licence renewal, or the granting of the right to conduct the great series of services which most of these companies possess, and not to the licence for some particular or new service, that this condition should be attached. I feel bound to add that the cases of difficulty have, to my knowledge, been very few, but they ought not to occur, leaving the public without a remedy, even in one or two isolated cases.
LORD GREENHILL: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, also basing my views on my own experience. When I sat as a deputy traffic commissioner, as they were called in my time, application would be made by a passenger road transport undertaker, and often we were faced with objections by competitors, on the ground that the applicant for the licence wanted to run a service along a road already covered by the objectors; and the objectors would come forward and try to show that if the licence were granted to the applicant they would not be able to run their existing service at a profit. It seems to me that that is a one-sided kind of traffic. If it be true that objectors can oppose a licence on the ground that if it were granted they would incur a loss, why should it not be possible to provide some kind of machinery whereby admittedly unremunerative services might be run? The matter is difficult, I know, but I think the objection is one of practicability rather than principle. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, may correct me if a say that in Scotland, where there are a number of routes which are admittedly unremunerative, some kind of Government assistance has been granted. In any event, some effort has been made to encourage the running of admittedly unremunerative services in order to provide a service for a particular community. For that reason, perhaps the Government would be willing to consider some kind of wording which would confer upon the licensing authority the power to say that they must provide a service where there is an unremunerative route.
4.55 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for tacitly acknowledging that this

545
Amendment is outside the Long Title of the Bill, and I will not press that point any further. However, the Amendment does raise questions of real interest. I should like to express my pleasure at hearing the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, speaking, I believe, for the first time on transport. It is an advantage to have a man of lifelong experience join us in these discussions. In examining this matter I feel that it is worth remembering that bus services have constituted a revolution in the countryside. It is all very well to say that there may be places where they have diminished, but, by and large, we wonder today how people ever lived in the country without bus services. Yet they did so at one time. Frankly, we could spend a whole afternoon on this subject. However, I do not want to talk to your Lordships at great length, because I do not think it is necessary, although I recognise the full force, of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said.
He has referred to the need for ensuring that country services are the best that can be provided, and he was quite right to quote the 1930 Act, because that was the object of that Act. However, what he did not say is that that aspect has been carefully examined by the Thesiger Committee, and they have written at reasonable length on their findings. I could put forward arguments of one character and another to say why I do not think the change is necessary, but it is more telling to say that a body of experience in licensing such as the Thesiger Committee examined this problem and came to the conclusion that no change in this respect was necessary. Perhaps I may read one or two passages from the Report of that Committee. They say:
"It was part of the licensing system that by introducing order into the industry and giving a substantial measure of protection to the regular operator it would facilitate the provision of unremunerative services. … In this the licensing system has been remarkably successful."
Further on they say:
"It is useless, for example, to suggest that local authorities should have the right to propose or that the licensing authority should have power to order a service to be compulsorily piovided.… All such proposals ignore the fact that if a service cannot pay for itself, its provision depends on a subsidy from elsewhere."
546
That is quite clear. It means, in fact, that the remunerative services have got to put up their fares, which seems to me to be essentially a matter of adjustment for the licensing authority. I believe they can do that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They cannot.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Thesiger Committee go on to say:
"To sum up: although we recognise the need for the maintenance and development of unremunerative services and the difficulty of meeting this need in present circumstances, we are of opinion that there are no means by which any alteration in the licensing system could in itself provide a solution for the problem."
That is an authoritative statement. I should like to add that these unremunerative services are being operated fairly extensively. We have information that in many places it is common for 40 per cent. of the route mileage covered to be unremunerative, and possibly 50 per cent. I have notes of various companies. There is one where the unremunerative route mileage amounts to 71 per cent. and another where it is 76 per cent. That seems to go a fairly long way to meet this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has been good enough to quote his own experience, but I do not think this rests entirely upon him. Anybody who so desires can approach the licensing authority or he can approach his own local authority. There should be no difficulty about doing that. The local authority have a status for making representations when they want and, of course, they are doing so continually in one form or another. If they are not satisfied, in certain circumstances they can appeal to the Minister. That, clearly, is strong action which they can take.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, took this matter further in his interpretation of the 1930 Act, and I will not differ from him. He says that an absolute condition can be made. What is quite certain is that, through the good will that exists between the organisation and the licensing authority, a great deal can be achieved just by the sort of discussion which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had. Whilst I think he should be commended for his action, I do not think he should feel that that is an isolated

547
instance. That sort of thing is going on all over the country in different ways, and I have little doubt that there is ample room for people to make representation where it is necessary. Of course, there is always the possibility of another company coming in if necessary.
The licensing authority must not become in any sense of the word an administrative authority. If you give it direct control and say, "You do that," it would be a surprising thing to tell someone to do something else at his own expense. I think that would weaken the licensing authority. If we accepted this Amendment, it would mean that the licensing authority could issue instructions not only to private undertakings, but also to the British Transport Commission and to the local authority transport undertakings. With respect, I think that is going much too far. The point which the noble Lord has made is a real one, but in view of the specific recommendations which have been made by the Thesiger Committee, who have examined this matter fully, I do not think the Government can accept anything further than the Bill as it stands at the present time. For that reason, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the sympathetic way in which he has discussed this. But I put a different interpretation upon the Thesiger Committee's comments from that of the noble Lord. It is a very cleverly worded paragraph, because the Committee said:
"… we are of opinion that there are no means by which any alteration in the licensing system could in itself provide a solution for the problem."
The Thesiger Committee—and they were in a difficult position—quite clearly say that there is only one thing to have, and that is a monopoly. In other words, the greater the area over which fares are averaged, the greater becomes the opportunity for providing unremunerative services. The noble Earl is in this difficulty. Section 18 of the Transport Act, 1953, broke the monopoly. It gave the Minister power to compel the British Transport Commission to divest itself of all interest in road passenger transport where it held the monopoly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No. With great respect to the noble Lord, all it
548
did was to give power to the Minister to compel it, and there has been no compulsion.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not said that. The Act gave the Minister the power to compel (that is as far as I have gone at the present time) the British Transport Commission to get rid of its shareholding where it had a monopoly. The noble Earl is quite right from then on. The Minister has not done it, because he knows very well that immediately he did so it would throw the passenger transport of this country into a private enterprise scramble, and the unremunerative routes would not be served at all.
The Thesiger Report comes down on the side of monopoly, but it does not make any recommendation because it would then be in the political field, and it shies off that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for his powerful support, because he was the Director General of the Ministry of Transport during the time when this Act was passed. In view of his powerful support, I will ask the noble Earl this question. If I withdraw my Amendment, will he have further consultations about this matter, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said? There is no greater authority on this subject in the country, because one might say that Lord Hurcomb was the real architect of all the Transport Acts, except that of 1953. That is weighty evidence. If I withdraw my Amendment, will the noble Earl have further consultations with the Minister of Transport so that, if necessary, I can put this Amendment back, in any form he desires or his expert draftsmen would like, on the next stage of the Bill?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I shall be glad to have discussions with the noble Lord, and I will certainly consult the Department. I must point out that the noble Lord's Amendment would mean amending the Long Title, so I cannot hold out much hope that we shall be able to make concessions.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of that assurance, and in view of the fact that the Long Title of the Bill can be altered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Application of charges schemes to independent railway and inland waterway undertakings]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The new Charges Scheme supersedes the scheme of 1953, and therefore it should now read 1954. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3 line 38, leave out ("1953") and insert ("1954").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Control of number of passengers on pubic service vehicles, tramcars and trolley vehicles.
9.—The Minister may make regulations with respect to public service vehicles, tramcars and trolley vehicles providing for—and different regulations may be made for different cases or different circumstances.
5.9 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved in subsection (1) to insert the following paragraph:
"(d) the determination of a simple form of licence governing the occasions when public service vehicles, tramcars and trolley vehicles are used as contract carriages but separate fares are charged;"
The noble Lord said: We come now to a subject which, in my view, is one of great seriousness. In fact, I am now going to plead the Thesiger Report. This is the opening sentence of paragraph 227 of that Report:
"It is clear that this is one of the major problems with which we are expected to deal"
That is the position of the contract carriage. It is a complex matter, and I should like to explain it to your Lordships, if I can, in a few words. The 1930 Act set up three classes of passenger transport: the stage carriage, the long-distance express carriage and the contract carriage. The contract carriage, as its name implies, differed from the other two because separate fares were not charged. The stage carriage and the express carriage have separate fares for every individual who boards the bus, but the contract carriage is a bus which is hired to go to a certain place for a lump sum. By calling it "a contract" carriage a road service licence was not required and separate fares could not be charged. It had to be a contract to hire the whole of the coach for the whole of the journey,
550
and all the passengers had to go the whole of the journey,—with one proviso: that they could charge separate fares if it was a special party going to a special occasion.
That point was contested in the courts, and the courts held—and litigation started in 1930—that it meant, in plain language, that the party had to be a special party and the occasion to which they were going had to be a special occasion; in other words, the connotation of "special" had to be precisely the same in the context of both although they were in separate paragraphs of the Act. That was completely contrary to what was in Parliament's mind when it passed the 1930 Act. What was meant was this: that one could organise the village Women's Institute or the village children to go to the local pantomime. That was a special occasion for the village children or the Women's Institute. But as the pantomime might run for sixty days or nights, that was not a special occasion; and so, by charging separate fares, these people were contravening the Act. They had to have a road service licence if they were going to charge separate fares.
This matter got into such a muddle that in 1934 an amending Bill, which became the Road Traffic Act, 1934, was passed. Parliament then attempted to remove this anomaly, but the net result, according to the courts of the country—and they were the people who had to interpret it—was that it made matters worse. Not only did the law contend that the requirement that the party must be a special party going to a special occasion, remained, but it also held that the extra requirements which were inserted by Parliament when it thought it had eased the rightness of the "special occasion," and which meant, in effect, that nobody could advertise the party and that nobody could draw any remuneration for organising the party, stood. In common sense, it meant that the Women's Institute could not pin a postcard on the village hall board saying that they were all going to the local panto-mime, because, if they did so, they would be entering into some kind of criminal conspiracy. Under the same Act, if two or three of your Lordships got into a taxicab and went to your club for dinner and, when you got there, said: "We will share the fare," you were all engaged in

551
a criminal conspiracy, because you were having separate fares in a contract carriage.
As a result, the Thesiger Report said, at paragraph 243:
"The position at the moment is really quite intolerable. Practically none of the work which has been considered to be legitimate private hire work is now legal. Grave public inconvenience is only avoided by an omission to enforce the law, and it may be that every two or more persons who agree together to run a vehicle charging separate fares subject to the conditions of the 1934 Act, but on what has been held not to be a special occasion, might be liable to be indicted for a criminal conspiracy."
That has been going on since 1934, and it has been pleaded in the courts by counsel for the Treasury Solicitor that, "Of course, this does not really mean very much, because it is not enforced." The law is not enforced. It is interesting to see the views of the High Court on this matter. Appendix II of the Thesiger Report sets this out. First, in answer to a question by Lord Goddard, counsel said:
"Yes, but in such a case there would be no prosecution, because the authorities exercise common sense in enforcing the Act."
Then Mr. Justice du Parcq—and I suppose that when, as Lord du Parcq, he was sitting in your Lordships' House, he was one of the most respected Members—said:
"That is entirely wrong. If the law leads to absurdities they should be made apparent by the enforcement of the law, and Parliament should deal with them. Nothing is worse than for authorities entrusted with the enforcement of an Act of Parliament to enforce it or not according to the dictates of 'common sense'."
I am seeking to get over this difficulty, and I am sure the noble Earl will not argue with me that such action is not necessary. As the Thesiger Report says, this is causing considerable public inconvenience. Nobody in a social club, a working men's club or anything like that can organise a party during this winter and charge separate fares without running the risk of being taken up on the charge of criminal conspiracy.
It is quite obvious that what is wanted, as the Thesiger Report says, is a simple form of contract licence. By my Amendment—again, I say I am not tied to the wording of it—I am seeking a simple form of contract carriage licence in which the licensing authority can insert what conditions they like. I am not seeking
552
to have contract carriages run where there is already a stage coach which is adequate for the purpose, but I would ask the noble Earl to look at the position of these rural people where there is no stage carriage. They cannot even take the children in a party to a pantomime, they cannot go in a party to a football match, they cannot do anything like that and charge separate fares unless they are prepared to stand the risk of facing the serious indictment of conniving at a criminal conspiracy. It is causing a great deal of upset, especially in the theatrical profession. My inquiries have elicited that quite a number of theatrical managers have had to curtail their pantomine seasons, because at Christmas time the theatres rely very much on block bookings which emanate from institutes and clubs in rural areas.
I think I have said enough. I do not think I need to convince the noble Earl on this matter. I am rather afraid of what he is going to tell me—that he is going to throw himself upon the mercy of the Committee, and say that he will admit that everything I say is true, but that a special Act of Parliament or something akin to that is required to put the matter right. We cannot wait for that. It is no good the noble Earl pleading that it will be done as soon as Parliamentary time allows. That has been said ever since 1934. When you plead for Parliamentary time and then say that you will do it when Parliamentary time allows, you never get the time. Of all the absurdities of the law that have been allowed to stand and have not been redressed since 1930, this is one. The taxicab problem was somehow alleviated, although not wholly satisfactorily, by the Road Traffic Act, 1937. I am not interested in that. I am interested in seeing that the poorer people of this country shall be able to enjoy this quite legitimate service on special occasions, to go into the towns in special parties in order to enjoy the amenities of those towns. I will not say any more. I beg, to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 12, line 19, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not going to say that I do not agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said. I think that is a fair comment. Of course, if the question of time arises, he must think of his own Party—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I agree.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Our position is this: that already something like three attempts have been made to deal with this matter, and they have all failed. A number of drafts have been put up and the courts have not upheld the intention of the draftsman. What we are doing is simply this. We received the Thesiger Report too late to include it in this Session's legislation. Before legislation can be introduced, there must be a good deal of consultation and examination. This is proceeding now and, as I think the noble Lord is aware, the Minister has said that he intends to introduce legislation just as soon as he can. That is the intention. I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment is quite so simple as is suggested. It is a little more difficult to deal with this problem than the noble Lord's Amendment indicates. I should like to say, however, that we have not forgotten this problem. It is, I agree with the noble Lord, an urgent problem, but I very much hope that he will not press his Amendment, because I do not think that what he suggests would entirely meet the circumstances.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Let me say quite frankly that my Amendment will not meet the whole of the circumstances. I know that my Amendment would have to be incorporated in tidier legislation. But cannot we do something? Under the Road Traffic Act the Minister has power to make regulations. The noble Earl will forgive me for saying this, but I have never trusted this plea in regard to Parliamentary time. I had to make it when I was a Parliamentary Secretary, and I knew that on many occasions I was doing it with my tongue in my cheek. One says that one will do something when there is Parliamentary time; but there never is Parliamentary time. I do not know whether the noble Earl can do this, but if he could give a firm undertaking that a Bill to put this matter right will be, introduced in the next Session of Parliament I would willingly withdraw my Amendment. In the meantime, perhaps he would consider whether or not it is possible for some small regulation to be made which will once again allow the licensing authority, on special application, to grant a temporary licence this winter—and that is all I ask—to allow these
554
people to take their children from the rural areas into the towns, to the theatre or pantomime, as they were able to do years ago. That is not too much to ask. The Minister has power to issue regulations under the 1930 Act. If the noble Earl would say that he will discuss with the Minister a temporary way out. I should be willing to agree to that. Perhaps at the next stage the noble Earl could say that for this winter this service could operate, and then next Session there could be presented a short Bill, which would have to clean up one or two other things as well and which could be incorporated in the legislation. I do not think that it is fair that the convenience of the public should not be considered. The Thesiger Report quite rightly says that this is an intolerable situation. Perhaps the noble Earl would consider that suggestion.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Of course, everything that the noble Lord has sad I will look at most carefully, but I am bound to say that there is a great deal of contract work going on.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is illegal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It may or may not be. It is not for me or the noble Lord to say whether it is or is not. But some can be carried on legally. However, I will look at it to see whether anything can be done in this respect.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No doubt there will be consultations, and I may put the Amendment down again on Report stage so that the noble Earl can give his answer. But in view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to-day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Interpretation].
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is designed to correct a mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("1937") and insert ("1947").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
Regular Services
3.—(1) The undertakers may at any time apply to a licensing authority for public service vehicles for an authorisation to make, and a licensing authority for public service vehicles may at any time serve notice on the undertakers of the intention of the authority to direct the making of, such variations in all or any of the fares for the time being charged on all or any of the regular services to which this Part of this Schedule applies provided by the undertaking on any route or part of a route lying within the traffic area of that authority as may be specified in the application or, as the case may be, notice.
4. Any such application or notice shall be published and after considering any objections or other representations which they may receive with respect to the proposals made therein, the licensing authority shall either—
(b) authorise or direct, by means of fixing fares or maximum or minimum fares for the routes or stages affected, such variation in all or any of the said fares, whether or not affected by the application or notice, as the authority may consider reasonable or expedient in all the circumstances:
Special provisions with respect to certain services
10. This Part of this Schedule shall apply to such of the services to which this Schedule applies as are provided by an independent undertaking wholly or partly within an area (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as "the reserved area") within which any local Act restricts the provision by any person other than the undertakers of services by public service vehicles on which a passenger can be both taken up and set down within the reserved area on the same journey.
5.28 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAMhad given notice of his intention to move, in Paragraph 4 (b) to leave out "reasonable or expedient in all the" and to insert "not unreasonable." The noble Lord said: By permission of the Committee may I slightly amend the drafting of my Amendment? I propose now at page 19, line 9, to leave out from "consider" to the end of the line and to insert "not unreasonable." The meaning of this new Amendment is identical with that of the published Amendment. It is set down to ensure that the procedure relation to the fixing of fares for trams and trolley vehicles shall be the same as that for omnibuses. I believe that that is the intention of the Bill, but I suggest that this point is not entirely clear as the Bill is drafted at present.
556
May I remind the Committee that fares on omnibuses are governed by Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. If the Committee will look at Section 72 of the Act they will find that the licensing authority is to secure that the fares shall not be unreasonable. On the other hand, in the Bill which is now before the Committee, if one turns to Paragraph 4 (b) of the First Schedule, one finds a new set of words, directing the licensing authority to secure that the fares shall be "reasonable or expedient." The word "expedient" is one somewhat beloved by the bureaucratic mind, and I feel that it should not appear in this Bill. Moreover, the word seems to indicate that expediency may be different from reasonableness, which I feel sure is not really intended. The Traffic Act of 1930 has worked very well indeed, and I see no reason why the draftsman of this Bill should want to change the word unless there is some ulterior motive, and I do not think that can be true. Apart from this, there is a considerable difference between the positive approach that fares shall be reasonable and the negative approach that fares shall not be unreasonable. I suggest the obligation on the licensing authority is much greater in the positive approach than in the negative. For that further reason I maintain that the wording in Paragraph 4 (b) of the First Schedule does not really conform to the procedure of the licensing authorities laid down by the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, leave out from ("consider") to the end of the line and insert ("not unreasonable").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD HURCOMB: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in his dislike of the word "expedient" in this context. Fares ought to be just to the public and to the undertaking. To introduce here a conception of expediency, as it may present itself either to the mind of the licensing authority or to the mind of the Minister for the time being on an appeal, does not seem to me to be the right way to determine an issue of this kind. I cannot but think that some other form of words which would meet both Lord Teynham's points would be an advantage and would not be very difficult for the draftsman to find.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH:Expedient to whom? Expedient for whom? I am not complaining of the licensing authorities. Like Lord Hurcomb I must recognise that on appeal these matters can go to the Minister. I am quite willing to absolve licensing authorities from anything like political bias, but I am certainly not prepared to absolve any Minister from any suggestion of political bias. The intention of the Act that the fare shall be "not unreasonable" in all the circumstances is quite the right language, and I support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Teynnam, in moving this Amendment is perfectly right in saying that the intention of the Schedule, as I said on the Second Reading, is that it should be pari passu subject to the 1930 Act. The intention is that it should operate in the same general way and have the same effect. But, of course, the fundamental difference between Section 72 and the operation here is that whereas under Section 72 a road services licence is required for all buses, that does not apply with trolley buses and trams because, in so far as it is necessary, they have it already. Paragraph 4 (b) is concerned with fares, and with nothing else. We feel that it would not be putting the matter on an entirely comparable basis to use the words "not unreasonable" in dealing with fares and with nothing else: it would be a negative approach, particularly with this in mind. Under the 1930 Act, in granting road service licences the authority had to take regard of quite a number of things—frequency, stopping places, and such matters. If it is not in agreement with the undertaking, it can just cancel the road service licence or refuse to grant a licence; but there is no power to do that here. The authority cannot stop trams or trolley buses running; it can only control fares within certain procedure. We feel that if the simple thing they had to consider was that fares were "not unreasonable" that would be too negative an approach.
If the noble Lords will look at Paragraph 3, he will see a postive approach by the licensing authority on the third line:
"May at any time serve notice on the undertakers of the intention of the authority to direct the making of such variations. …"
We feel that we should give them some
558
thing more positive than the wording "not unreasonable," which is quite a negative approach, and something which more accurately reflects what is required here. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has thrown doubts upon the word "expedient." The circumstances which arise are circumstances which all affect traffic. We are trying to regulate competition and we must consider that fact. An arrangement might be reasonable with fares so high that the effect would be to kill another company and thereby create a monopoly, but it might not be expedient in all circumstances. Those are circumstances which it is considered necessary to put into the Bill. I do not stand absolutely on the word "expedient," but it meets the circumstances. The word must cover a wide variety of circumstances, all of which are really contained in the passage of Section 72 which the noble Lord read before, the elimination of unnecessary services, co-ordination and so forth. That is intended by that wording. With great respect, I do not feel that identical wording would in this case necessarily produce the same results.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord said that it may be "expedient" to regulate competition. May I cite a case? Suppose that a local authority had a service carrying passengers to a football match on a Saturday afternoon and asked for the fare to be fixed, and said: "We are losing a lot of money on our tramway undertaking or our trolley buses, so will you please fix this fare for football matches at twice what would be reasonable normally, because people must use the buses to go to the football match on Saturday afternoon and therefore it will be expedient to do so?" Would it be "reasonable" for the fare to the football match on a Saturday afternoon to be fixed as a special journey once a week? It might be "expedient." I think it is a most dangerous deduction. It is expedient to do anything. It may be expedient to charge an unremunerative fare inside an area and for a local authority outside its area, when in competition with another service, to charge an unremunerative fare. It may also be expedient to charge double what would be a reasonable fare. I think that it is introducing into a rather sensible clause a very dangerous word. These

559
things have been known to happen in the past and now that we have the fares—those of buses, tramcars and trolley buses—coming under one authority for the first time, I beg the noble Earl to agree to revert to the original language and say simply that the fares shall not be "unreasonable."
LORD HURCOMB: I appreciate the noble Earl's point. I quite see the need to give the licensing authorities a wide discretion, but would the noble Earl consider the use of some such expression as that the fares should be "fair and reasonable"? It is the idea of expediency in rate fixing that I am concerned about. I may be old-fashioned in these matters but it strikes me that this language is not acceptable, either from the point of view of the user or from the point of view of the undertaking. It seems to imply that someone else is going to do over their heads what may be, for quite extraneous reasons, convenient or expedient. I think there is a real point here. I do not wish to press it too far, but I think it could easily be met by returning to the more cautious yet adequate language of earlier legislation.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We have wandered a little bit I am afraid from the original draft of Lord Teynham's Amendment. Lord Hurcomb has suggested that I should make the words "fair and reasonable in all the circumstances." The latter part is really important. Lord Lucas of Chilworth omitted it in his reference to the word "expedient." The essence of the matter is that it must depend on the circumstances. We are charging the licensing authority with this responsibility. They have to take all the circumstances into consideration. I do not see anything wrong with "fair and reasonable in all the circumstances" but I do not feel that it is necessarily better than "reasonable or expedient in all the circumstances." But if it pleases Lord Hurcomb I shall be happy to look at the point again between now and the Report stage.
LORD TEYNHAM: I must say that I do not like the word "expedient." I hope that, before the next stage of this Bill, the noble Earl will look at the wording again, to see whether it is possible to get some wording which will meet with the approval of both sides of the House. In fact, I suggest that some of
560
the words in Section 72 (4) (a) of the Traffic Act, 1930, might be appropriate. They, I think, would cover the question of competition. I suggest that some such words as those might be drafted for the next stage of the Bill. If, as I understand he is willing to do, the noble Earl will agree to that, then I will now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.44 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in paragraph 10, after "undertaking" to insert "being a local authority." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment and the two which follow are not submitted in any contentious spirit: they represent the considered views of the Association of Municipal Corporations, an association whose views in relation to local government matters are at least worthy of serious consideration.
Let me say just a word or two as to the purpose of the Amendments. As your Lordships may know, there are now some thirty-eight local authorities operating tramways, and it is generally agreed that tramways are being superseded by other forms of transport. In the past, of course, local authorities had to come to Parliament for powers to construct and work a tramway; and, whatever may be their deficiencies to-day, owing to developments in other forms of transport, tramways have served a very useful purpose. Parliament has always retained the power to fix maximum fares—I think quite rightly. Everyone will agree that local authorities operating tramways are faced with difficulties owing to rising costs, and up to now those authorities have been able to meet the position by obtaining Parliamentary sanction for increases in the maximum fares. They have obtained Parliamentary sanction through the Minister. To put it quite briefly, that is the position that local authorities, through their representative association, are asking should continue. They wish Parliament, through the Minister, to retain the power to fix maximum fares, giving the local authorities a little bit of elbow room within the maximum fares to deal with the fares generally. It is understood, of course, that this applies only to trams operated within the area of a particular authority. Local authorities feel that it will put them

561
to quite unnecessary trouble and expense to be compelled to go to the licensing authority for sanction for every increase in fares. And they feel that in view of the fact—and everyone agrees that it is the fact—that trams are on the way out, it would be much better for the present position to continue.
After all, local authorities have a duty to their ratepayers. They have statutory restrictions and duties imposed upon them as tramway operators which are not imposed on operators of other forms of transport. There is no need for me to develop this point, for I think your Lordships will be aware of the position. Just in a general way, as a local government man, may I say that local authorities throughout the country are restive and worried at the continual loss of powers. All Parties are to blame for that position—I am lot debating that question now, and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk will not, with a view to making a debating point, say that my Party have been the worst offenders in that regard. But, rightly or wrongly, local authorities are of the opinion that this is just another little pin-prick, and they do ask, through these Amendments, that the Minister should allow the present position to continue and not ask them to submit to a body that is in no way responsible to the ratepayers of the particular areas. I agree that in respect of buses and other transport which runs outside their own areas they have to come to the local licensing authority, but the position of the trams is, I think, unique. Local authorities have got to prepare, and prepare very rapidly, for the time when the trams will become obsolete—they are obsolescent now. They must prepare rapidly for the replacement of the tracks, and to provide for all the other expenses which will be involved. They feel chat the Minister, and not the local licensing authority, which obviously would not have to take those considerations into review, is the right person to be the judge of the circumstances. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 44, after ("under taking") insert ("being a local authority").—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has been so frank in acknowledging his guilt towards local authorities that I need no enlarge on the offence that has been given. May I say that the present
562
situation cannot go on? Up to now, any increase in fares has been made by application to the Minister, who has used his powers under the Defence Regulations, but his powers under those Regulations will lapse within one month of the passing of this Bill. Therefore some other provision has had to be made. What we are suggesting is not substantially different from what is happening now. To-day, if a local authority want to increase their fares, they put in an application to the Minister, who refers it back to the licensing authority; and if the licensing authority agrees to it, the Minister normally approves, and there is no appeal. We are proposing here that the local authority should go to the licensing authority in the first place; and from there, if they do not like the licensing authority's decision, they can go to the Minister. This is not so very different from the position which exists now and which the noble Lord says is satisfactory.
The noble Lord mentioned that trams were going out of existence, and this also applies to trolley buses, which are diminishing in number, but possibly much more slowly. This is exactly the procedure to which every local authority has been fully accustomed since 1930.
LORD BURDEN: I admitted that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, and so far as I am aware the local authorities have never complained about it. They find it entirely satisfactory. One of the difficulties about accepting the Amendment is that we have had an authoritative Committee sitting on this question and of its seven members three had served on local authorities. One of them had been Lord Provost of Aberdeen, and another was a former Lord Mayor of Bristol. This Committee presented a unanimous Report, with a clear recommendation that this matter should be brought under the licensing authorities. I put it to the noble Lord that it would be very difficult for the Government to go against that. Where Parliament has granted a monopoly, we have provided that that can continue: but where Parliament has not granted a monopoly, I think it may be presumed that Parliament wished to have competition. If this Amendment were accepted, what we should have would be completely unregulated competition. I do not know in whose

563
interest that would be, and I find it hard to accept that proposition as it stands.
I do not think this provision represents any serious infringement of the sovereignty of local authorities: I think it still leaves them with full responsibility in their own sphere. I suggest that, to all intents and purposes, the Amendment throws them back to the need to obtain an Act of Parliament to increase fares. The noble Lord said he thought there should be only maximum fares laid down. Of course, if the local authority propose to the licensing authority that only maximum fares should be stated, I am sure they would be pleased to consider that. Other matters, like setting aside capital for renewals and replacements have to be taken into consideration. No one would suggest that the licensing authorities should not take these matters into consideration and I know that well-run local authorities, of whom there are many, already have these matters clearly laid down. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment. I feel that going back to increasing fares by Act of Parliament is clumsy. We know that it has not worked after the war as it worked before the war, and it would not be fair to local authorities to go back to that system, with all its clumsiness and expense, in place of one which has worked well for the local authorities over a large field.
LORD BURDEN: While thanking the noble Earl for his reply, I feel, with due respect, that unless I have misinterpreted the purpose of the Amendments, they do not imply going back to the old Private Bill procedure. The Amendments recognise that up to now the Minister has been working under Statutory Rule and Order, but prior to that the procedure was by means of Private Bills. They propose that the Minister should still be able by regulation to fix maximum fares—at least, that is the intention of the Amendments. If that would not be achieved by the Amendments, and if they would throw us back again to the old clumsy Private Bill procedure, then I admit the case which the noble Earl has put forward. But I look at it from an entirely different point of view. At this present stage, I will withdraw the Amendment, in order to see whether my interpretation or that of the noble Earl is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before six o'clock.