Lords Sitting of 26 July 1955

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

Prayers
The Earl of Yarborough—Took the Oath.
The Lord Kennet—Took the Oath.
The Lord Congleton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
2.36 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CHESHUNT URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STOCK EXCHANGE CLERKS' PENSION FUND BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

OXFORD RING ROAD
2.39 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the order authorising the work necessary to construct the Botley-Wolvercote section of the Oxford ring road has been signed in accordance with the undertaking given to the House on 21st June.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform the noble Lord that the draft order in respect of the Botley-Wolvercote section of the Oxford Ring Road was published last Friday, July 22.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the satisfactory nature of his reply. May I also congratulate him on missing the fall of the Sword of Damocles by three days? May I farther ask whether he will bring forcibly to the notice of those who will be responsible for the construction of this much-needed highway that the work should be carried out with all possible speed? And could the noble Earl, without in any way committing himself—I know this is a difficult question for him to answer—be kind enough to give some indication of when he, or Her Majesty's Government, think that this road should be completed?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, we know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is not interested in this road just because he lives in that area: he is concerned with much broader considerations, as I am sine we all appreciate. At the same time my right honourable friend is reluctant to enter into any specific Parliamentary undertaking in regard to different roads. I am sorry, but I cannot add much to what my noble friend Lord Hawke said earlier this year in regard to the possible date of completion. But I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that, within the limitations imposed upon us, we approach this matter with all possible urgency. My right honourable friend does realise the importance of this particular road in joining up other roads in the neighbourhood.

USE OF COMMON LAND
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: 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 what conclusions they have reached as a result of their undertaking of February 23 to examine the use of common land.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, my right

975
honourable friend the Prime Minister is making a statement on this subject in another place this afternoon. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot anticipate that statement now, and so, with the noble Earl's permission and with your Lordships' leave, I will make a statement later in the afternoon, at a convenient point in our proceedings.

ARMY BOYS' UNITS
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: 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 what steps they have taken or propose to take to implement the recommendations in the Report of the Committee on the organisation and administration of boys' units in the Army.]
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, as recommended by the Report, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War has appointed a full-time Director of Boys' Training. He has also set up a committee, under the chairmanship of the Director-General of Military Training, to help in putting the many recommendations contained in the Report into effect as quickly as possible. The daily life of the boys in boys' units has already been greatly altered and after the summer holidays will generally conform with the policy outlined in the Report. The system of selecting boys, which was changed at the end of last year to improve the standard of entry, is already showing promising results. Further, more officers have been provided for boys' units, and great care is being taken to select suitably qualified staff. These changes, combined with longer tours of duty for instructors, are securing the improvements which the Committee considered necessary. We have also adopted a number of the other recommendations contained in the Report.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that reply goes a long way, and is very satisfactory, so far as it goes? But in view of the far-reaching and important nature of the Report, will he urge upon his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
976
War the need to take proper Estimate action in order to implement the remaining recommendations of the Report?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in reply to what the noble Viscount has just said, I shall have much pleasure in bringing his remarks to the notice of my right honourable friend.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) AMENDMENT (No. 2) ORDER, 1955
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Order is no more than an amendment of the rates of benefit of the revised scheme which was approved by this House on March 23 of this year. The scheme which the House then approved was consequent on the passing of the National Insurance Act of 1954. Since that time the Government Actuary, in his capacity as adviser to the Trustees, has carried out a comprehensive review of the whole scheme. As a result of this review, it is now possible to increase the maximum benefits under the scheme from 22s. 6d. to 25s. a week. This rate applies to supplementary injury benefit and also to 100 per cent. disablement benefit, and there are corresponding increases to juveniles. The supplementary disablement gratuity is increased from its present proportion of one-quarter of the basic disablement gratuity under the Industrial Injuries Act to one-third. There are also increases to supplementary widows' pensions.
The Order also introduces a new supplementary benefit. This is a gratuity payable on the remarriage of a widow entitled to a widow's supplementary pension. It will be at the rate of one-third of the gratuity awarded to her under the main Industrial Injuries Act. The scheme is now costing rather over £3- million, and these proposals will mean an additional cost of £270,000 for the first full year. This cost will be borne by the existing contributors—that is, the National Coal Board and those engaged in the mining industry, without any additional contribution. Of course, there is no grant from the Exchequer for this scheme. I feel sure that the scheme will be welcomed by your Lordships' House.

977
I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment (No. 2) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his explanation of this draft Order, I should like to tell him and the Minister of Fuel and Power that the miners are very grateful for the expedition with which this Order has been brought forward. As the noble Earl has rightly said, it provides additional benefits for a number of disabled men and for the widows of men who have been fatally injured in the mining industry. The amounts are not very large but they are welcome and on behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers and on my own behalf I thank the Government for their expedition in this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POTATOES (GUARANTEED PRICES) ORDER, 1955
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this Order represents a further step in the changeover from emergency to permanent powers as the basis for providing guarantees for agricultural produce listed in the First Schedule to the Agriculture Act, 1947. Like the corresponding Orders for fatstock and cereals which your Lordships have already considered, this Order is made under Section 4 of the Act. It brings under the legislative authority of Part I of the Act the administrative arrangements for providing the guarantee for potatoes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Potatoes (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, before this Order is approved, I should like to ask the noble Earl one question about the financial provision. I understand that the amount of money involved is approximately £4 million. I presume that that is the loss which the Ministry will incur by the sale of potatoes, either for human
978
consumption or for stock feeding, as against the support price which the farmers receive—that may be a varying amount, according to the losses and the quantity of the crop. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell the House the basis on which the sum of £3,900,000 has been arrived at: whether that has been obtained from the experience of the past, whether it is estimated to be the maximum amount of loss, or whether, in fact, it may be more money than is required.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this figure is calculated on averages worked out on past years and by the appearance of the crops at the beginning of this season. The figure of £3·9 million includes all running costs as well, and is not just the difference between what is paid for potatoes and the price at which they are sold for feeding-stuffs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1955
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the present White Fish Subsidy Scheme expires at the end of this month. The purpose of this Scheme is to provide for the subsidy to be continued at the same rate and on the same conditions until next autumn. We shall then have had a chance to discuss with the trawler owners the changes in costs and prices which have occurred since the current Scheme was introduced and which might necessitate an alteration in the rate of subsidy. After the Summer Recess a new Scheme will be laid before your Lordships which will, among other things, take account of the effect on fishing costs of the recent increase in the price of coal. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, that the best thing is to continue the present Scheme for a short period, pending the introduction of another Scheme which will take into account the increased costs which the fishermen have had to bear. At the same time, may I put this question now to the

979
noble Earl? The object of this very considerable subsidy is to enable the inshore, near and middle fishing fleets to modernise their vessels, to substitute oil fuel for coal, and to pay their own way. When the noble Earl introduces the new Scheme, after the Recess, I think it would be interesting to your Lordships if we could have a short account of the degree to which the fishing industry have succeeded in modernising their fleet, thanks to the subsidies which have been paid to date.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this Order is not quite what the noble Earl is referring to. I believe he is referring to the Order which I had the honour to move in your Lordships' House a few days ago, which was responsible for giving grants for vessels direct to the fishermen and the trawler owners. I said then that under that Scheme we had dealt with some 30 per cent. of the fleet, but that there was still another 70 per cent. to deal with. If the noble Earl would like further information at a later stage, I will certainly give it to him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to apologise to the noble Earl for not being able to put this question last week, as I intended to do, because I was abroad at the time. Nevertheless, if I may, I should like to put it now in order that we may have a fuller statement next time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords this Order is in the usual form and contains nothing to which I need draw the attention of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Towcester, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEEWARD ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, in introducing this Bill, it is appropriate, I think, that I should say a few words about the historical background. The present federal constitution of the Leeward Islands under which the four Presidencies of Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands are grouped together to form the Colony of the Leeward Islands, dates from an Act of Parliament of 1871, the Leeward Islands Act. This Act established a Federal Executive Council and a General Legislature which has power to make laws for the Leeward Islands or any part thereof on certain subjects specified in the Act—for example, postal matters, currency, audit, mercantile and criminal law, the police force and immigration—and, as respects any Presidency, on any other subject that is declared by the Legislature of that Presidency to be within the competence of the General Legislative Council. Presidential Legislatures also have power to make laws on these matters, but a law of a Presidency Legislature is void if it is repugnant to a law of the General Legislature; and any law of a Presidency Legislature relating to any of the subjects mentioned above may be repealed or altered by a law of the General Legislature.
The Act of 1871 by no means represented the views then held by Her Majesty's Government about the desirable extent of federation. It was intended to be but a first step which would be followed by federation of the Windwards and then federation of the Windwards and Leewards. But this first step was never followed by a second and third owing to the strength of opposition in the Wind-wards; and the limitations of the federal authority set up—temporarily as it was then thought—in the Leewards in 1871 have prevented it from developing into a strong and economic form of government. In recent years the unpopularity of the Leewards Federation in the island has been steadily growing. Some time ago the General Legislative Council

981
passed a unanimous resolution which asked the Government
"to ascertain what action is necessary and thereafter to take appropriate steps to bring an end to the Federation of the Leeward Islands."
Meanwhile it has become clear that it would be easier for the Leeward Island,, to enter the projected West Indian Federation as separate units, which is the proposal in the West Indian Federation plan and that the existence of a Leeward; Federal Government would be an inconvenient anomaly.
In these circumstances, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in a Written Parliamentary Answer on December 21, 1954, that he hoped to introduce legislation as soon as practicable to abolish the Leeward Islands Federation. Hence the present Bill. I should add that the financial consequences of the abolition of the Leeward Islands Federation will be negligible. The future Colonies (three of which—Antigua Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands—are grant-aided) will take over certain items of federal expenditure and will have to strengthen their administrations, hut the cost of this should correspond roughly to the reduction in expenditure on central services.
Let me turn now to the Bill itself. Clause 1 effects the main purpose of the Bill, namely, to abolish the Colony of the Leeward Islands—or in other words the Federation—which was established by the Leeward Islands Act, 1871, and to provide that the four Presidencies of that Colony, namely, Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands shall become four separate Colonies. They will remain under one Governor and the position will then be the same as that in the Windward Islands where there are also four separate Colonies under one Governor. Clause 2 contains some rather complicated legal provisions that are consequential upon the dissolution of the Colony of the Leeward Islands. Broadly speaking, the effect of subsection (1) is to restore the position as regards the law-making powers of each Presidency—or Colony as they will now become—which obtained before the passing of the Leeward Islands Act, 1871. Before 1871 the Presidency had constituent powers. The Act of 1871 changed its position for not only did it set up a general Legislature for the Colony of the Leeward Islands but also
982
made provision for the enactment of laws by the individual Presidency Legislature. To this extent, therefore, the original constituent powers possessed by each Presidency were replaced or overlaid by the provisions of the Act of 1871.
This subsection therefore does two things. First, it provides that upon the repeal of the Act of 1871 the provisions of the Presidency Constitution Ordinances relating to law-making powers, which are at present of no effect, shall come to life, thus restoring the position which obtained before 1871. Secondly, the subsection goes on to provide that the remaining provisions of those Ordinances—for example, provisions relating to such matters as the composition of the Legislative Councils and the holding of elections—shall as from the appointed day have effect as if they had been enacted by virtue of the law-making powers which are contained in the Ordinances themselves. This will avoid any doubt as to whether the provisions in question can be amended by the exercise of these powers. The object of subsection (2) of this clause is, first, to enable Her Majesty by Order-in-Council to provide for the continuation and adaptation of existing Orders-in-Council and perhaps one or two local laws, and, secondly, to enable the Governor or the Legislature of each Presidency to provide for the continuation and adaptation of existing local laws other than the few that may be dealt with by the Order-in-Council.
Among the consequential matters for which provision will have to be made by Order in Council is the transfer to the four new Colonies of the assets and liabilities of the Government of the Colony of the Leeward Islands. In this connection it is obviously important that provision for the continuation and. adaptation of existing laws should, where possible, be made in advance so as to take effect upon the appointed day. Subsection (3) makes it clear that such a. course is possible.
I turn now to Clause 3. This clause empowers Her Majesty by Order in Council to make, or to authorise the making of, emergency laws for the four new Colonies. The possible emergencies which one has to take into account are not only riot and civil disturbance but also such things as hurricanes and earthquakes, which are not infrequent in the West Indies. A period of emergency is

983
defined by subsection (4) and an emergency law may be made only during a period of emergency and expires at the end of the period of emergency unless the Legislature of the Colony concerned continues it in force. In general I need only say that this clause provides in respect of these new Colonies powers which already exist in respect of most other Colonies.
I turn finally to Clause 4, which empowers Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for the establishment of courts for the four new Colonies, and makes such amendments to the Leeward Islands and Windward Islands (Courts) Order in Council, 1939, as are consequential upon the creation of the four new Colonies. There are complicated legal reasons for the inclusion of this clause. Briefly, the point is that at the moment the authority for the Leeward Islands and Windward Islands (Courts) Order in Council, 1939, which sets up the Supreme Court of the Wind-wards and the Leewards and the Wind-wards and Leewards Court of Appeal is, so far as the Leewards are concerned, an Act of the General Legislature of the Colony of the Leeward Islands. This has not in fact given rise to difficulties so far, but we do not feel that after the "appointed day" it will be satisfactory to have these courts ultimately dependent for their existence upon four different Legislatures.
There is no reason to suppose that this clause will provoke any controversy in the Leeward Islands. Indeed, there is no present intention of making an Order under it since the present Supreme Court, with which all concerned in the Leewards are perfectly content, will continue in existence. This provision merely enables another Order in Council to be substituted for the present one should that ever become necessary. My Lords, I hope that I have explained this Bill adequately to the House. It is, as I have already said, a measure which is desired by the Leeward Islands themselves and which is. in my view, a desirable prerequisite to the wider Federation in the Caribbean which we all hope will now be not long delayed. I therefore commend it to your Lordships, and hope that you will give it a speedy passage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, all Members of your Lordships' House who know the Leewards will welcome this Bill. As the noble Lord opposite said, the federal structure has been unpopular for a long time, and, indeed. it does not correspond to any sort of collective loyalty. The loyalty in the Lee-wards is to the individual islands, and not to any sort of collective entity; they are so far separated that it is impossible to conceive of any genuine communal or collective will or spirit. The first reason, therefore, why the Bill should be welcomed is that it does away with this anomalous, top-heavy, federal structure and will, therefore, increase the efficiency and the popularity of the administration of the Leeward Islands. The second reason, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, is that it will facilitate the accession of the Leeward Islands, as separate Colonies, like their neighbours, the Windward Islands, to the West Indian Federation, when it is set up.
There is one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord in relation to this matter. As he is well aware, the only island territory in the Caribbean which has expressed desire not to federate is the Virgin Islands, and they are afraid that this will prejudice their relationship with the American Virgins. Under this Bill the Virgins will become a separate Colony. What is the intention of the Government in relation to the accession of the Virgin Islands to a Caribbean Federation? Have they given consideration to this matter from the point of view of public opinion in the Virgins? As the noble Lord is well aware, the principle adopted in the case of the other territories has been that federation has depended on the desire of the local inhabitants to join in the wider political set-up. I should like to know whether the noble Lord has addressed his mind (I realise that my question may be a little early because the setting up of this Federation is some way ahead) to this particular problem, which I think arises out of the Bill.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I must admit that I perhaps have not addressed my mind as much as I should to this particular problem. I know there is a feeling in the Virgin Islands that they do not want to federate. Whether that feeling will continue indefinitely, I think

985
neither the noble Earl nor I would be rash enough to say. Clearly, if they do not cone into the Federation, some new system of dealing with the continuity of the Colony will have to be devised. Quite frankly, while we have considered the point, I am not in a position to give the noble Earl a considered opinion on it this afternoon, except to say that it has not entirely eluded us. But we feel, despite that difficulty, that this de-federation must take place; we must jump that fence when we come to it. That is really the position at the moment.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY COURTS BILL
3.7 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I do not think I need take up any more of your Lordships' time by dealing with this matter further. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that that does not indicate any discourtesy to the House, because the Bill was fully discussed in the last Parliament and we have had a Second Reading debate in this Parliament. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not at all complain of the short way in which the Lord Chancellor has dealt with this matter. We had a full discussion in the last Parliament, and on the Second Reading debate I ventured to point out to the Lord Chancellor that in substance our Amendments had been incorporated in the Bill in its present form. I want to say only this. The county court is intended to be, and has always been, the poor man's court. It would be a great
986
pity if the poor litigant, who brings a small case for £5 or £10 or what you will, a case which to him is of vital importance, were in any way crowded out because actions involving higher finance had any form of precedence. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will keep that matter under his close personal survey, as I am sure he will. I think that the effect of this Bill will be that many of these smaller cases will be tried by the registrars. That may be good or may be bad; it depends on the registrar. That, too, is a matter which I know the noble and learned Viscount will keep under his personal view.
Then the whole matter is, to some extent, a leap in the dark. We have to see how it works. I believe that it will work well, but I know that the Lord Chancellor will not mind my saying that it will work all the better if he keeps the whole matter under his careful personal view from time to time. Having said that, we on this side of the House give this Bill our blessing and hope that it will do what we certainly intend should be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I intervene for one moment only to give the noble and learned Earl the assurance for which he has asked. He and I have happy memories of the county courts. I can assure him that it will be a subject always near my heart and my mind.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.
VALIDATION OF ELECTIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

THE EXPANDED ROADS PROGRAMME
3.13 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the expanded roads programme will be sufficient to meet the future needs of traffic, particularly in view of the experience gained throughout the country during the railway strike; whether a return can be issued showing the progress so far made with the expanded roads programme and the progress likely to be made during the next three years; whether the programme as a whole is being dealt with as a matter of urgency; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward additional proposals in view of the huge increase of traffic which will take place during the next three years; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, when a Member of your Lordships' House ventures to introduce a Motion relating to roads, we are sometimes told: "They want racing tracks for speed-crazy motorists." In order to try to lay that ghost, I should like to recite three facts. One is that for every ton of goods that goes by rail, three tons go by road; secondly, only one-tenth of the goods arriving, at the London Docks for export arrive by rail; thirdly, in the case of Liverpool and Birkenhead 79 per cent. of all the tonnage of goods carried goes by road. Having made those few remarks, I am sure your Lordships will realise the seriousness of the Motion which I venture to submit to your Lordships this afternoon.
It was on February 2 that the Minister of Transport introduced the expanded roads programme. In introducing it he used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 536, col. 1097]:
"…the work done in the early years … must necessarily be mainly in connection with the improvement of existing routes."
Here we are now, five months later, and I want to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply to this debate—I hope your Lordships will forgive me for reciting a list of extreme focal points of traffic—what steps have been taken to deal with the congestion at Newark, on A.1, at Stamford on A.1, and I would also include Stevenage, Biggleswade and Grantham. What has happened with regard to Markyate, on A.5, and St. Albans, on A.5? We are told that there
988
are to be by-passes, ring roads and so on, but no sort of idea has been given to any of us when these extremely necessary things will be completed. To show your Lordships how serious the problem is I may say this. Whilst any of your Lordships who motored up the A.5, say, between three and four o'clock in the morning might expect to find the road fairly free of traffic, in fact he would find the traffic going through such places as Markyate even heavier at that time of the day than during the midday hours, because of the enormous quantities of goods, cars and so on for export coming by road from the Midlands.
Then, again, with regard to A.48, what is happening about Newnham, Newport and Chepstow? The importance of Newnham, Newport and Chepstow, for those who do not already know it, is this. The Minister has talked, and Ministers have talked, quite a lot about the Ross spur as a substitute for the Severn Bridge—it is a road which they very much want. But the Ross spur will decant its traffic, if it ever gets going, into A.48, where there are these extreme focal points at which traffic is completely hung up. And what, for example, has happened with regard to Maidstone and the Ashford bypass on the A.20? Maidstone is a point of extreme concentration for traffic going in that direction. The Ashford by-pass is largely but not fully complete: there the end of it sits, without a sod being turned and no work at all apparently being done. The Minister has said, I believe, that he was going to authorise a fly-over junction at that point. I hope that he does; but I would urge him: for heaven's sake, get on with the work instead of merely putting it in a programme!
Then what is happening with regard to Reigate? That has not featured in any of the Minister's utterances. Reigate is on the No. 2—some may call it the No. 1—main road to Brighton. The road goes through a tunnel, and there is extreme concentration at the level-crossing there. Horsham is another extreme focal point. Then I come to Staines, on the A.30. There must be many of your Lordships who endeavour, at holiday and other times, to get through Staines. I met a friend the other day who told me that it had taken him one and a half hours to get through Staines. That is not an unusual experience,

989
but I have not seen any particular allusion to Staines in these problems and the Minister's programme. If you go a little further down A.30, you come to Sunningdale, with its level-crossing. There again, on occasion, tremendous hold-ups occur. What is happening at Ingatestone, on A.12? What is happening at Lancaster, on A.6, or at Worcester, on A.44? At all of these points traffic is so congested that, on occasion, it piles up literally for miles. The expanded roads programme does not give us much hope with regard to much of this congestion.
On June 9, the Rime Minister, speaking in another place, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 542 (No. 3), Col. 65]:
"Traffic is multiplying at a most alarming rate. I am told that there are likely to be another 1½ million vehicles on our roads in the course of the next three years."
He went on to say:
"There has not been any major road reconstruction plan at all over the last sixteen years."
Further on he said (Col. 66):
"In all this we have very much in mind the need to reduce accidents which is at least as important as the reed for new roads for industry."
I will come back to that aspect of the matter in a moment. Then he went on to say:
"We have also tried to get to grips with the special problem of the congestion of London and other great cities."
One would like to ask the Prime Minister what really has been done. We have heard about the Cromwell Road extension, and that work on that extension has actually started, but the whole of the original plan has been bogged down somewhere in Hammersmith because of interference with amenities. I understand that the viaduct which was an essential portion of the Cromwell Road extension is now out. Are we really tackling the question of London traffic?
Turning to Paris, which I am sure your Lordships know as well as I do, and probably better, they have gone in for a large system of tunnels. Instead of one main road being allowed to cross another, they tunnel under. A great deal of work of that kind has been going on all along the banks of the Seine, where they are tunnelling under the bridges and decanting traffic on to the north or south banks. Cannot the Minister or the Government
990
give us some little hope with regard to a similar plan for London? There are points where tunnels could be cut in order to relieve the congestion of London traffic. Take another town—Stockholm. Stockholm has gone in for a big fly-over junction system which has, I believe, proved to be of immense benefit to the city. Then in Rotterdam, in Holland, they have gone in for a big sunken road scheme to get the through-traffic through the city without interfering with the city's traffic.
I pass from that matter. The Prime Minister went on to say (Col. 66):
"Work on a number of these schemes, in-eluding the London ones, will actually begin quite soon."
I put a mark against those words, because they really gave a little hope that we had not to wait for three to ten years before something was done. If only the Prime Minister or somebody could tell us which schemes have been started or are about to be started ! Above all, could we be told when they will be completed? No Minister in the Government has given us any particular forecast about that. Speaking on July 6, the Minister of Transport said (OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 543, No. 22, Col. 1100):
"In my statement on February 2 I named twenty-seven large schemes."
I have a list of them here; it is the expanded roads scheme. He went on to say that he hoped to authorise them this year; that actual work will have started on at least a quarter of the schemes by the end of September, and that work on practically all the remainder will start before the end of the financial year. All that is magnificent, so far as it goes; but Ministers always stop short—they do not give us any idea of the estimated date of completion, and it is that information that believe the country is really anxious to have.
On July 5 the Minister of Transport held a Press conference at which he indicated that about 340 miles of motorways should be built within ten years. Within ten years! When one looks back at the history of what various Governments have proposed in order to deal with road questions, one feels that the matter is pretty hopeless. In 1946, the Government of the day brought in a great scheme involving 800 miles of road—it may even have been more than that. It was a great

991
scheme, and if only it had been carried out it would have done much to solve our present-day problems. Unfortunately, it was abandoned in 1947. Here we have our present Minister of Transport expecting to build some 340 miles of motorways within ten years.
None of these plans was additional to the expanded roads scheme. I should like to give your Lordships a criterion by which to judge how long it takes, or how long it can take, to produce these motorways. They were to comprise six lanes of traffic, with three lanes in each direction. It was a grand scheme. In the United States they have a motorway between New York and Baltimore—118 miles of road, with six lanes and seventeen clover-leaf junctions on the way. That was completed in two years. The same sort of road, I agree slightly longer (340 miles of road as against 118 miles), should, if one estimated it at twice the time, take four years to build. That would sound fairly hopeful and reasonable. It is almost three years ago to the day since Lord Leathers, then Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, rose in this House and said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 117 col. 965]:
"I want to tell your Lordships that we shall be ready to proceed as soon as we get the green light."
That was on July 9. 1952. We are now in July, 1955, and I suppose the Minister has not yet given the green light. But if he is ready to proceed, or if it is true that the Ministry are ready to proceed, what is stopping them?
I come now to present delays to traffic. Most of your Lordships find yourselves on the roads at holiday times. at fine week-ends and the like, or at any rate listen to the wireless reports wherein the motor organisations tell us that there arc blocks on this, that or the other road, three to five miles long. One knows from one's own experience that that is all too true. The Roads Improvement Association has told us that delays to traffic are costing the country £250 million a year. Naturally, I cannot vouch for that statement, or for its accuracy, but I have reason to believe that it is not far wrong. If it is true that delays to traffic are costing £250 million a year, I submit that that is a direct charge on the cost of living. The cost of living is rapidly
992
becoming, if it has not a long time ago become, one of the most serious problems with which we are faced to-day. Surely we ought to do something that will begin to bring down the cost of living. It has been estimated that motorways would save at least 12½ per cent. of the general cost of delay. Surely that is worth while. Practically everything that is used, everything we wear, everything we consume in our daily lives, at some stage goes on to the roads. If it is delayed in transit on the roads the cost will have to be borne by all of us: we shall have to pay a little more. Surely we ought to be able to do something about that.
Then we come to the question of accidents. I often wonder whether we are in earnest when we talk about accidents on the highway. Do we really know what we say? I have often heard in this House expressions of universal horror, and one reads them in the Press as well as hearing them in debates. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimate that accidents on the highway cost this country something like £157 million in 1954. Wherever roads have been improved an immediate reduction in the number of accidents has been found possible. Road accidents can be very effectively dealt with by road engineering. I have with me a booklet, published by an organisation which I will not advertise, which is complete with pictures, and any noble Lord who wishes may gladly see it. This booklet shows what has been done in the matter of road accidents and how, by the improvement of various black spots, road intersections and other examples of bad road design, accident figures have been reduced by 100 per cent. We may therefore look forward without doubt to a reduction of accidents if we improve our roads as the Minister of Transport said, in February, that he was going to do.
The reason for the reduction in accident rates is that road improvements can remove those features which cause errors of judgment. I could quote figures from American experience, but I will give noble Lords an example of what can he done by road improvements in this country. In 1932 a new road, A.580, was built between Liverpool and Manchester. There is an old road, A.57, which went through Warrington. In the three years ended March, 1951, there were, on the old road, 741 casualties. Vehicles pass

993
along that road at the rate of 4,000 a day. In the same period on the new road there were 492 casualties, yet there were 7,000 vehicles using that road every day. There was, in fact, a 75 per cent. reduction in accidents. That is the sort of improvement for which we may hope if we improve our roads and get on with the work instead of just talking.
Today there are over 6 million vehicles of all kinds on the roads of this country. The Road Research Board, which cannot be said to be a biased or motoring organisation, has said that the number will double in eight years; there will be 12 million vehicles on our roads eight years from now. The Minister of Transport has also stated that the number will increase by 1½ million in three years. Our roads are pitifully inadequate today. Does not all this underline the absolute and crying necessity, from the point of view of industry and our national life, for a real sense of urgency to be imparted into the Government's proposals to deal with this problem? I often wonder to what extent Ministers themselves actually appreciate the urgency of this problem from their personal experience. I wonder how many drive their own cars or depend upon the Government pool for their motor transport. They must surely realise that the position is becoming completely intolerable.
Recently the Minister of Transport held a Press conference He referred to the expanded roads programme but gave no idea that the problem was being tackled as a matter of real urgency. Various references were made to proposals and the Minister gave estimates of when authorisation might take place, but there was no estimated date of completion for any particular proposal. The Minister did not say whether tenders had been invited, or negotiations for acquisition of land had begun. I believe that they have, but that is only hearsay, for there has been no Government announcement to tell us the real position; and I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply will be able to give us some real information this afternoon. The Minister left in the minds of those who heard him at that Press conference, or who afterwards read the proceedings in the Press, the impression that most of these schemes were at the drawing-board stage and might so remain almost indefinitely.
Her Majesty's Government must realise: that Governments have long shilly-shallied over this problem. One moment it has been said, "Yes, we must have roads," and the next moment, "The national situation being what it is, we cannot have roads." People are now naturally a little suspicious. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not overlook the fact that the next Election will be coming within four or five years, perhaps depending on the activities of noble Lords opposite and their Party. If nothing effective has been done by the time the next Election takes place, having regard to what has been said by the Prime Minister and by members of Her Majesty's Government, there will be some 8 million thoroughly exasperated and frustrated people who will want to know why—and they may have votes.
I want to try to be constructive. I may be quite wrong, and. no doubt, if I am noble Lords will he able to show me where, but I believe that until we have an authority which can provide guaranteed continuity of finance we shall never get anywhere with the roads programme. We shall not get the development which alone can effect a real reduction in traffic congestion and thereby make its contribution to a reduction in accidents and in the cost of living. I want to submit, as I have done in the past. that we should have a national highways authority in this country, with power to raise money and control finance up to an authorised limit, and that that authority should deal only with new road construction and should be free from annual financial interference, as in the case of electricity, coal, gas, railways and aviation. That step has been taken in regard to all those services, so why not do so with roads? We do not expect our Minister of Transport to go down and examine all the details of Sir Miles Thomas's expenditure on B.O.A.C. or Sit Brian Robertson's proposals with regard to the railways. No doubt the Minister has these matters generally before him, but one does not expect him to be immediately responsible for everything. The same applies to gas and electricity. Surely the Minister would himself he better off were he to keep all these vast undertakings only under his general supervision, rather than be, as he is at the moment in the case of the roads, immediately and actually responsible for them.
Such a national highways authority should be able to negotiate the actual planning and expenditure with the various local authorities concerned. From what I happen to know through discussions with county surveyors and similar people, I believe it would be an enormous gain if there could be some real continuity, for local authorities could then look forward to steady programmes proceeding at an ordered pace through the years, rather than in fits and starts. I believe that they would then be in a much better position to organise their contribution to the general scheme of road improvements and that it would result in the making of roads as soon as possible and would give everybody concerned a chance to make up for lost time.
I believe that this national road authority should be given power to raise money as and when required. The ultimate requirement, I consider, in view of such information as I have been able to get hold of, is probably £750 million spread over ten years. Now if the money were raised at 4 per cent., repayable in thirty years as required, the servicing of that loan at the peak would need only £45 million a year. That is less than the Minister actually proposes to spend at the present time. It would enable a real programme to be worked out and started on without going along uneconomic paths or moving in fits and starts. The Government are now getting £400 million a year from motor taxation in all its forms, so they really cannot say that the proposal which I have put forward is an extravagant one. They cannot say that £45 million a year is an extravagant charge on revenue of £400 million a year.
Others may say: "That is all very well but you cannot provide the wherewithal." Sir George Burt, President of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, has told us that the civil engineering industry can cope with 800 miles of new roads without undue strain. He said that on February 4 of this year. Sir Trustram Eve has stated that the cement makers can guarantee the cement. About 70,000 tons of steel would be required to complete the programme, and this is not an extravagant demand on a production of 15 million or more tons a year. The British Road Tar Association say that the necessary tar and bitumen would be available.
996
This being so, it does not seem that it is beyond possibility for a national highways authority to be endowed with the necessary authority and power for the funds to be raised, and for the work to be got on with, and, moreover, got on with it at once. Practically every other country in the world outside this country is hard at work making roads adequate for the needs of its traffic, and has been doing so for years past. This is really a remarkable situation. Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Holland, Malta, Portugal, Sweden, Western Germany, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Persia, Turkey and many others are all hard at work making roads for the traffic in their countries. Look at Austria: that is a country which has only just been freed from occupation. Surely we are in no worse position than that of Austria—at least, I cannot understand it if we are. The same applies with regard to Belgium, Holland and all those small countries which I have mentioned.
In conclusion, I submit to your Lordships that "Stop" and "Go" tactics will not help the nation now. We are "up against it," and unless we adopt new policies and new methods in connection with our roads we shall find that such complete road stagnation is just round the corner as will bring vividly to mind our experiences in the General Strike—and even worse than that, in the words of Lord Leathers, give the nation a steady green light, and not one that flickers. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in a most interesting speech—if he will permit me to say so—focused our attention on three major points. Does the Government's existing road programme measure up to the nation's requirements? Is even the road programme already announced under way with sufficient force? Can we hope for any substantial benefit or increased acceleration while our roads are under the authority of the Ministry of Transport and under the supervision, as regards finance, of the Treasury? In a debate that we had in your Lordships' House last week, when, for the last time, we buried the Road Fund and erected its tombstone, I asked the noble Lord who was replying for the Government how the Government proposed to finance the

997
road programme in the future, when, at the behest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it could be brought to an end in any one year by his refusing—if I may be allowed to use the vernacular—to "sweeten the kitty" once every twelve months. Lord Hawke said that of course the road programme in the future will be financed in exactly the same way as it has been financed in the past. The noble Lord could not quite grasp the fact that that is what we are so afraid of; and that has been the prime reason for much of what the noble Earl has stressed so much to-day.
I want to start my contribution to this debate by asking le noble Earl, the Paymaster General, 'ho is going to reply—and, unless he belies his title, he is the one person who should be able to delve into this matter—this question: Do I already see a dark cloud on the horizon? Do I already see in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement a recurrence of history? The east wind which I predicted is just becoming a gentle breeze. Domestic spending is to be curtailed. Is Government spending to be curtailed? And will the first Government project to come under the Butler "axe" be the Government's road plan? I think we are entitled to know that; I think the nation is entitled to know that. Is the Boyd-Carpenter road plan going the same way as the Barnes road plan went, as the Chamberlain road plan went, and as every road plan in the history of this country has gone? I ask the noble Earl, in terms, to tell your Lordships whether the poor wretched unborn child is going to be strangled even before it sees the light of day. That is the first question I want to ask.
I agree with Lord Howe that, judged by any measure, the present programme does not measure up to the nation's requirements. I do not suppose the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will attempt to defend its inadequacy; I expect his defence will be the Treasury defence—shortage of money. But surely no-one would suggest that an expenditure of £147 million in three to four years can cope with the chaotic conditions on the roads of this country. And on what basis is it suggested that in this country, which has led the way in all forms of engineering ever since this nation was born, it will take ten years to build 340 miles of these new motorways? I cannot
998
understand it. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, quoted the statement from the Minister's Press conference that we are going to have real roads—340 miles of them—in ten years' time; and that the Minister hopes to authorise the first in three years' time. If it were not desperately serious, that would be funny. It was not meant to be funny. The Minister is a serious man.
What is wrong? I intend to give my view of what is wrong. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will imagine that I am arguing, obliquely, his case for a national authority for roads. I am not going to mention that, because I understand that other noble Lords are: to develop that theme. The only thing I would say is that, from being a bitter opponent of the idea, I am now almost on the verge of being a convert to it, on the basis that things just could not be worse. I wonder whether there is sufficient dynamic force behind this scheme and whether we are going about it in the right way. I have here the Minister's Press conference report and I see that we are to have a 35-mile section of road with six fly-over junctions. This is the first time the fly-over has come into the nomenclature of road building in this country. We are to have dual-carriageways of three traffic lines on each side. To us this idea is something really revolutionary; but in America it died a natural death three or four years ago. They now have four lines, and even six lines of traffic going each way. The New Jersey turnpike and the New York Thruway have six lines of traffic—final is, twelve carriageways. And these two roads, which are far longer than 340 miles, were completed in one-third of the time it is going to take us to build our 340 miles of road. What has America got that we have not? Will the noble Earl tell me? Perhaps he will say that it is money: I am afraid that that is going to be the answer. I am not going to admit that it is constructional brains.
I believe that our road programme always has been, and while the present set-up remains always will be, tied up in a mass of red tape and contradictory officialdom. I believe that that is the root cause of the trouble. I am going to cite a case to illustrate precisely what I mean. In the £147 million programme there is a stretch of about four miles of road on the A.40 known as the Oxford Islip turn. Everybody who knows the

999
A.40 knows that that is a very dangerous piece of road. A three-line road there was first suggested by the Oxfordshire County Council thirty years ago. After it was suggested, arguments and delays ensued. The Ministry said that a two-track road was sufficient for any main road in this country. Then the war came. Immediately after the war, the plan for rebuilding this road was resuscitated. The county council pressed for it and they were asked to put forward a revised plan. The Oxfordshire County Council did put forward a revised plan, and for six months they did not even get a reply. Then the argument started between the experts. The years rolled by and at last that road is included in this plan.
The road starts at the Oxford city boundary and the real trouble lies in the omission of the 771 yards from the city boundary to the by-pass which was built before the war. Under this plan we are to have a four-carriageway road funnel-ling into 771 yards of two-track road. Why cannot the 771 yards be widened at the same time? The argument goes that this is because the roads come under two highway authorities, the County and City of Oxford also that one scheme is going to cost £250,000 and the other a few thousand pounds, and therefore they are two different schemes. The quarter of a million pounds scheme will be finished in twelve months: the 771 yards scheme is not scheduled to be finished for four years. A start has been made on the paper work of the 771 yards scheme. I understand that the city authority have now received a letter from the Ministry of Transport asking that if they receive an invitation to act as the Ministry's agents when this scheme is authorized, will they please answer. "Yes" or "No". I ask the noble Earl to use his endeavours to complete this section of road while the contractors are there on the other section.
I cite only one example, but I could multiply it hundreds of times all over the country. If one studies this road plan, one sees where sections of road are started from nowhere and end nowhere. There are hundreds of four-line sections coming out of two-line sections and running into two-line sections. If a plumber fitted the plumbing of a house like that, I wonder what the result would be. There must be something wrong
1000
when there are all these circumlocutions and paper work and delays. I could keep your Lordships here for hours giving you examples. There are county authorities with first-class road engineers who have designed bridges and submitted plans to the Ministry of Transport, only to be told that they must have not a concrete bridge but a steel one. Heaven knows why! The result is a two-year delay while the steel is obtained and before it is delivered. Right in the middle of any one of these schemes we may have another east wind and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that the Government cannot go on with the scheme anyhow.
I think that what is wrong is that we are trying to plan the roads of this country with a horse-and-cart mentality. The Government are prone to point the finger of scorn at industry because of the delays in delivery that are cutting us out of the export markets. Have noble Lords ever heard of the delivery date of 340 miles of road ten years hence? If anybody in a commercial concern did a thing like that, he would get "the sack." That is what I think is wrong, and that is why I support what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said. First of all, the plan is totally inadequate. Before this £147 million road scheme is completed we shall be so swamped with transport that the scheme will be out of date before some of the plans are even authorised. Bearing in mind the rate at which vehicles are coming on the roads, and also the present congestion on the roads, we must do something better.
I want to make some comment, and I do net think it is necessary to offer any apology for so doing, upon what I consider to be one of the most important matters we have to consider in this country in connection with construction. It is a continuation to the Question which the noble Earl so kindly answered this afternoon and it has excited leader page articles and leading articles in the Press. I refer to the road congestion which forms upon our one trunk road through the centre of this country, the A.34, when it gets to Oxford. The noble Earl stated this afternoon that authority has been given for the commencement of the next section of the Oxford ring road. So now we have a ring road for about three-quarters of an hour if we look upon

1001
Oxford as a clock. We have the main east-west entering Headington by-pass; we have the southern by-pass—one of those comic things built years ago which started nowhere and finished nowhere; and we now have the Botley-Wolvercote by-pass promised—at least, we have signed a paper. That will complete about three-quarters of the circle. I want to press the noble Earl that in the national interest—and he was kind enough to pay me the compliment that I have no personal interest in this—what is known as the Sandford link, a scheme that has been accepted by the Ministry, and also what is known as the Little-more-Headington-Cowley section should be completed, thereby completing the circle. Until that is done we shall never solve the Oxford traffic problem.
It is at about this time of the year, when the Birmingham holiday week starts and all the West Midlands close down and make one dash for the sea, that chaos reigns. If your Lordships tried to get into Oxford this afternoon you would see about 400 coaches lined up along the Woodstock and Banbury roads, and you would be unable to get anywhere near the centre of Oxford. This matter has been the subject of controversy between the University authorities, the City authorities and the Oxford Preservation Trust—all estimable bodies; but if all three had set out with malice to bedevil this problem, the) could not have succeeded better. The outcome is that there is a serious suggestion that the biggest act of vandalism has a chance—I hope only a faint chance—of success: the proposal that in some spurious effort to solve the problem of the main road congestion, two roads shall be driven, one through Christ Church Meadow and the other through the Parks at Oxford. Never have I heard a more insane proposal to solve a traffic problem. It will not get near it.
I am stressing this point because I want to end by asking the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whether he will represent to the Government that this is a national and an international problem—the city of Oxford is one of the most priceless heritages this country has—and it should be taken out of a road programme and dealt with entirely separately. As one who has some knowledge of transportation and has studied the road question for years, I say
1002
that you will never be able to solve the problem of Oxford traffic, you will not preserve the University amenities of Oxford, or its historical associations, until you have diverted the colossal through-traffic which has to go through Oxford from the North and the Midlands to the South because there is no other road. If some of the wild-cat schemes put forward by people with axes to grind and vested interests to safeguard could be forgotten and it could be left to road experts to handle the problem, I am sure we should see better results.
I want to ask the noble Earl a specific question. Into this turmoil of discussion comes the Minister of Housing and Local Government. After four years of consideration of a development plan put forward by the city authorities, he writes to them declining to pass the City of Oxford development plan until they have put forward proposals for relief roads. Have we another Minister of Transport? Have we another road authority? I say this with respect, but is not the Minister of Housing here usurping the functions of the Minister of Transport? What will happen if the Minister of Transport says he does not agree? Do we go on wrangling and talking for another ten years? No, my Lords. This is a matter for the Government to decide. I hope they will decide to go on with the completion of this ring road by the building of the Sandford link and the building of the Headington Cowley section, so that it will not be necessary for any traffic from north, south, cast or west to go through the City of Oxford.
Also perhaps the city authorities will learn the lesson that the London authorities learned during the railway strike—the value of putting a complete prohibition on all waiting in certain streets between specified hours. What they should do, I believe, is to put a complete prohibition on waiting in about 100 to 200 yards of every road leading to Carfax, the High, Corn Market and Queen Street. In that prohibition I would include bicycles. I do not know whether your Lordships realise but if a bicycle is put against a kerb it takes four feet of that roadway. If you watch a bus driver passing a pedal cycle up against the kerb you will see that he will pull out four feet to miss it. Here, in this celebrated "High," the greatest street in the world without any question at all—with one part of it, as I

1003
think, sufficiently wide for six traffic lanes, and at its narrowest having room for four lanes, you will find that in the 200 yards where there could be four lanes, tradesmen's vehicles are allowed to stand on both sides of the road from morning to night. There are bus stops, bus crew change-over stops; and anybody who likes to prop himself up against the kerb can do so. So what happens? Sometimes there is not even one carriageway left there, and the jam starts. Prohibition on waiting is the solution. I hope that the Government—for in the end it will be the Government who must decide—will never allow the proposed vandalism of cutting through Christ Church meadow. Oxford University parks are the most beautiful spot and have memories for many thousands of people. Oxford is a modern Rome, and I sincerely hope that the Minister of Transport will not cast himself for the role of a modern Nero, and be content just to play a tune on a fiddle.

USE OF COMMON LAND
4.12 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will intervene to give a reply to the Question asked earlier today by the noble Earl. Lord Listowel. Her Majesty's Government are aware that the present law relating to common land in England and Wales needs to be reviewed. The Prime Minister has recommended to the Queen, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve, that a Royal Commission should be appointed to undertake a comprehensive review of the present law. The names of the Chairman and the members, together with the terms of reference, will be announced later.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am glad to hear that a Commission is to be appointed, but I hope the Government will have some sense of urgency in this matter. It is over a year since the noble Earl himself told us that there were something like 2 million acres of land in this country gradually going derelict. I am afraid that if we have a Royal Commission which has to explore the whole country, it will be years before it reports. In the meantime, the Forestry Commission has been brought to a standstill for
1004
lack of land. Will the Government do all they can to speed this matter up, perhaps by dividing it and considering county by county by separate committees? Do the Government realise how vitally important this matter is?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Earl that the Government fully appreciate the urgency of this matter. I would correct him on one point, if I may. He said that over a year ago I referred to 2 million acres. I did not have the honour to occupy my present office a year ago.
EARL JOWITT: It is a considerable time ago. It seems like a year, at any rate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask one supplementary question of the noble Earl? I agree with my noble Leader's emphasis on urgency. The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that the names of the Chairman and the members of the Commission and the terms of reference would be announced later. We are now about to adjourn for a three months' Recess. Does that mean that the names of the Chairman and members and the terms of reference will not be announced until after the three months' Recess, and, therefore, that the Committee itself will not get down to work until towards the end of the year?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, obviously I cannot commit my right honourable friend the Prime Minister without reference to him, but I imagine he will probably announce it through the Press during the Recess.

THE EXPANDED ROADS PROGRAMME
4.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the subject of roads and conditions on the roads has already been debated twice this year, a fact which I suggest indicates the importance that your Lordships attach to this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that there may be a dark cloud on the horizon. If there is, I hope that it will prove to be a cloud with a silver lining; but I hope there will be no cloud at all. No doubt we may hear something in that direction from the noble Lord who is to reply.

1005
It was on March 2 that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the question of Her Majesty's Government's road and rail policy; and on June 21 the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, initiated a debate on a Motion asking whether Her Majesty's Government would
"consider maintaining as permanent features the special schemes which proved so helpful in facilitating the flow of traffic during the … railway strike."
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, winding up the debate, indicated that the Home Office, the police, the London County Council, the Road Research Laboratory and the Ministry of Transport were all engaged in examining evidence to see what lessons might be learned from the railway strike. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been arrived at by these various bodies, or, if they have not yet reached their conclusions, when they are likely to do so. The motoring organisations feel sure that a grave traffic crisis will arise in and around Lone on in the near future unless extensive reconstruction and improvement of roads is commenced forthwith. But this must, of course, be allied with a comprehensive parking plan to provide adequate off-street parking accommodation and to relieve busy streets of the standing vehicle for which at present there are no other parking facilities. That is absolutely essential. We must have parking places which do not exist now. I do not want to go into all the various details of these parking places, because they are well known to your Lordships and I think it would be a mistake to repeat them.
I believe it is true to say that the principal effect of the railway strike outside London and other large cities was to increase congestion on the roads and thereby to increase the cost of transport to the detriment of industry. If the strike had gone on much longer, we should have seen the effect on our export trade. I happen to be a director of two shipping companies, and I know that even now we are having great difficulty in getting our goods to the ships and getting our cargoes away. Ships are held up, and the delivery of goods to our customers is thereby delayed. This problem is getting worse and worse every week. I cannot help feeling that the recent announcement of the Ministry of Transport concerning the new road programme, although it is excellent and a great advance on previous
1006
schemes, does not go far enough. Why cannot we have, for instance, the tunnelled roads which they have in Paris, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, told us? I was in Paris last week and inspected one of these tunnelling schemes, and I think it will be excellent.
The new road programme of Her Majesty's Government is really, I would say, a statement of schemes which may be authorised during the next four years; but it seems that little actual construction will take place. I think I am correct in saying that in the present financial year the expenditure of Her Majesty's Government and local authorities on new road construction will not exceed £8 million, rising to about £17 million in 1956-57, £30 million in 1957-58 and about £42 million in 1958-59. Of course, these figures are in addition to about £30 million spent on maintenance and minor improvements. I suggest that this total expenditure reflects very slow progress indeed, especially when it is remembered that, on present figures alone, during the next four years Her Majesty's Government will collect no less than £1,600 million from vehicle tax and fuel taxation.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention, as it appears to be, to announce programmes of four years from time to time, and whether they have any proposals to make for speeding up the provision of roads. No doubt one of the principal difficulties is the acquisition of the necessary land. Could this matter not be speeded up in some way which would still give justice to the owner? It seems to me that that could be done. There are one or two ways, but I do not want to go into them at the moment. I would say that even paying a little more than the market value of the land before the scheme is announced would be better than having no new roads at all for a long time. Of course, once the scheme is announced the land value goes up, but if we were prepared to pay a little more before the scheme is announced, we could go ahead very quickly indeed.
There is no doubt that the loss to the nation in bad roads is mounting daily, and something drastic will have to be done. I am still of the opinion, like many noble Lords on this side of the House and, I think, most noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, that the best way of handling this whole

1007
matter is to have a National Highways Board which would raise loans, in a somewhat similar manner to other public utility undertakings. I suggest that there is a great advantage in this scheme which would ensure continuity and would enable long-term plans not only to be made but to be completed. I hope that the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government will be able to assure your Lordships that schemes are in hand for speeding up not only the acquisition of land but the commencement of construction on land that is already available. There is a considerable amount of land that is already in hand. I fully appreciate that the present Government are perhaps the first for many years to take active steps to improve the conditions of our roads. Other Governments have passed Acts, but nothing has been done. We have now made a good start, but time is not on our side. I earnestly suggest that speed of development is now an essential factor of the whole plan to prevent chaos on our roads in the very near future.
4.22 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, in the Motion before us at the moment there are really four questions, but only two of them are to my mind of real importance. First, are the Government satisfied that the expanded roads programme will be sufficient to meet the future needs of traffic? Secondly, is the programme as a whole being dealt with as a matter of urgency? With regard to the former, I am sure that no Government spokesman, let alone the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who always seems to be put up to reply when there is a really "sticky wicket" to bat on, will have the nerve to say that the programme is sufficient. What I imagine he will say is that, much though the Government regret it, the programme is all that the national economy will stand at the present time. With that I should have to agree if I accepted the view that new roads and major improvements which are capital expenditure should be paid for out of current revenue; but I cannot agree with that view. No firm which is increasing the size of its factory would dream of trying to do it out of current revenue; it would do it either out of accumulated reserves or by raising new capital. Whichever method it adopted, it would
1008
not even start work without making certain that adequate communications, both inside and outside the factory, were provided for. It would most certainly not economise in that direction.
To-day, this country is an expanding factory, and if we are going to maintain full employment and our present, let alone an improved, standard of living, we have to expand fast. The existing communication system is completely inadequate even for the existing factory and is the first thing that must receive attention if the expanded factory is going to work and produce results. If we do not improve our communications, then it is not a bit of good improving our factory machinery. We have no accumulated reserves and must therefore raise new capital; there is no alternative. There would be no difficulty about raising the money. A road loan could be raised as easily as money for gas, electricity or the railways, and is now just as urgent. I am told that the answer that we should get is that there is no return on the money; that in the case of the other utilities the consumer pays and the Exchequer gets back its 4 per cent. But what about the owners of motor vehicles? Do they not pay? They are already paying in extra taxation—applicable to them alone, mark you, not to the other taxpayers—more than ten times as much as they are getting back.
Even if they were not, and quite disregarding the question of loans, what about schools and houses? No one will deny that they both are essential. And nobody should deny that roads are essential. Yet what are the figures for schools and roads? This, mark you, is paid out of income. In the case of schools, since the Conservative Party came into power new buildings costing £190 million have been competed, and others to cost £121 million are at present under construction. Those new buildings bring with them increased costs in the form of teachers' and others' salaries. Against the £190 million spent on schools, in the same period £15 million has been spent on new roads and major improvements—£15 million against £190 million. And increased costs in salaries against what?—a very small sum for increased maintenance. Against those figures, let us also take the amount spent on new houses over the same period.

1009
This amount, in subsidies, now comes to £216 million, and no account again is taken in this figure of the resultant sum disbursed in rent subsidies.
We are told that we cannot have this money because there is no return on it. There are enormous expenditures that not only get no return but involve additional expense. We get nothing for it. Those figures, though boring, prove how starved, at the expense of everything else, are the roads, and in them lies the answer to the second question: are the Government treating the road programme as a matter of urgency? No doubt they will say "Yes," but no one who thinks for two minutes will agree that they can be said to be treating the matter urgently whilst they go on trying to pay out of current revenue for what is capital expenditure. We do not do it in our private lives. Firms do not do it. Why should the country try to do it? Unless this matter is treated urgently and it is realised that capital is capital and revenue is revenue, and one should be spent on one purpose and one on another, we shall never get the roads, and eventually we shall find ourselves just sitting down in one place because we cannot move.
4.29 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I shall deal solely with the financing of road construction and highway authorities, but I shall go into rather more detail than did the noble Lords who have spoken on that question. I shall try not to be too repetitive, but I am afraid that to sonic extent I must be. Before I get on to that subject, may I ask Her Majesty's Government to note the point made by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst about what may be the Government reply, that while gas and electricity boards and authorities, and so on, earn money, that does not apply to highway authorities. The whole case for new roads is that they would save the country money, and although the amount saved may be difficult to put clown in a cash book I thought that the fact that it would save the country money was already part of Her Majesty's Government's policy.
Coming back to the question of road finance, when we "killed" the Road Fund last week I stated, and I should like shortly to state it again, that in the construction of new roads annual budgeting has been a complete failure. One
1010
of the principal causes of our troubles now, the fact that we have not the roads we need, is not so much that small amounts that have been spent on roads—times have been difficult—but that there has been no continuity of finance. When constructing roads, it is better definitely to have £10 million a year than to have a problematical £20 million a year. Perhaps one year you get £5 million; then you get a gap hen you get £20 million; then you get £10 million. Under those conditions it is impossible to undertake a major industrial operation, which is what the making of new roads is.
When a large commercial undertaking or company starts to build a new factory or to sell a new line of goods, the first thing it does is to see that its finance for that operation is in order, and will be there when required. Under this system of annual budgeting, nobody ever knows when this finance is going to be there. One consequence of that lack of continuity in finance is that we are paying more than we need for our road construction, and, for that matter, for our road repairs. What happens is this: you start to make a stretch of road—say a stretch of fifty miles; you stop it the next year because there is no money—there is a financial crisis. Two years later you start it up again. But you cannot start where you left off. Or recommencing the work, the whole preparation has to be gone through again, and there is invariably a delay of several months, non-productive months, all of which costs money.
There is also the question of road construction contractors. I am well aware that the Ministry of Transport know, though I sometimes doubt whether the Treasury yet know, that in these days new roads are riot made with picks and shovels: they are made with expensive machines needing skilled crews. The road contractors sink a great deal of capital into these machines. To get a proper return on the capital sunk they must keep the machines working the whole time. The proper way of making the new stretch of road is to put the heavy machines with their crews on the first section breaking up the land ready for making the road bed. When they have completed that section they move on to the next, and the next lot of machines come along and actually make the road bed. Then they have to move on again, and the surface contractors come in. That

1011
is the cheap way of making roads. Under annual budgeting the contractors never know what is going to happen next year. These machines may be working a year; they may be working for three months, six months or nine months; and if the work on the particular site is stopped the machines have to be moved right across country to where there is other work for them. All the time they are moving they are non-productive. This is nonproductive capital. So what do the contractors do? Quite properly, when they put in their tenders they have to make allowances for the time when, under annual budgeting, these expensive machines may not be working fully. So again, we are paying too much money for the roads that we are making.
I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that there are two ways of providing continuous finance, and I would suggest that in both cases a scheme for financing should be set up under a special and separate Act of Parliament. I say that because at present it is always possible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to Parliament and say, "I want amending legislation to wipe out this Act because we cannot afford to carry out what we have approved." Very properly, Parliament would then say, "Obviously, we are in a crisis; we cannot afford this scheme, and we must not go on with it." Under the annual system of budgeting, the Chancellor can just cut it out. If there were a special Act of Parliament he would have to ask for amending legislation. When the Road Fund was abolished by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the country was not road conscious, as I believe it is now called. Before a Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Parliament and said "We cannot afford it," he would need a very strong case, and I very much doubt whether, just because he was a little "hard up" in a particular year, he would attempt to introduce special legislation to do away with those Acts of Parliament. That is the suggestion.
There are two ways of getting continuous finance under these Acts. One is that under a special Act a certain percentage of a particular road tax—say one-third—should be allocated to a fund under the Act. For example—and at the moment I am giving it only as an example—the present tax on fuel oil is 2s. 6d. a gallon. If 10d. of that tax were permanently
1012
allotted to a fund (I am using that general term at the moment) it would provide £75 million a year. Much the same sort of amount could be raised by taking a proportion of the money raised by the tax on vehicles. That is one method of getting continuous finance. I know that there are many objections to it. I know, for instance, that the Treasury would not like it. I will not go into all the arguments against it; the only reason I mention it is that it has been suggested in various quarters.
We then come to the other system which has already been mentioned—namely, the question of a road loan. I suggest that such a scheme could be operated by Parliament giving authority for a maximum sum to be raised in a particular period. If I remember aright, my noble friend Lord Howe took as an example £750 million over a ten-year period, which would seem to be £75 million a year. The advantage of this scheme is that if that amount were raised on the open market by an authority—I have not yet gone into the question of the authority—finance would be raised as and when construction demanded it. Parliament would give authority for the overall amount over a period of, say, ten years, and that money would be raised by loans only as the construction demanded it. To lighten the burden on the Budget in those ten years—because the Government would have to service the loan—the interest and repayment could probably be spread over a period of about thirty years. That is a perfectly normal transaction, and it seems to me that the Government would be spending no more per annum, even in a peak year, than it is their intention to spend now.
So much for the actual raising of loans. I cone now to what I believe in Government circles, and certainly in departmental circles, is considered a much more unorthodox proceeding, the setting up of a highway authority. There are other authorities but from the departmental viewpoint—and from that viewpoint quite rightly—this would be a non-profit-making authority, although I suggest that, from the Government point of view, it would be very much a profit-making authority, for it would save so much money to the country. I suggest this highway authority for two reasons. The first is that a Government Department

1013
is not, either in outlook or organisation, suitable for handling a major industrial project: that is not its function. Secondly, there is the difficulty that if loans are to be raised on the open market it will be extremely difficult to let a Government Department raise its own loans. So far as I know, a Government Department has never been allowed to administer the proceeds of a loan raised on the open market. I may be wrong, but I can find no trace of such a happening. The Treasury keeps things of that kind in its own hands. I believe that that is almost an insuperable difficulty. If this highway authority were set up, however, the Minister's relationship to road transport would be exactly the same as with other forms of transport, such as the Transport Commission. He would have the very important supervisory powers. I submit that it is the Minister's job to exercise these supervisory powers; his job is not to make roads. At the moment he is trying to do both jobs.
I do not want to go now into details of the organisation of such a highway authority, but in general terms it would be an authority composed of a small number of men. It need not be as large as other authorities because it would not employ direct labour. That small body of men would be doing that work, and nothing else, full-time. As the Minister now does, they would work through and with local authorities. I suggest that they should have a strong advisory committee, composed of representatives of local government authorities, trade and industry, and civil engineers. Those people would be only an advisory body: the actual controlling body would be full-time. I need hardly add that, if they are to be of the requisite calibre, though small in number they should be well paid. It would be their business to raise loans on the open market and to submit plans of future new road construction to the Minister. The Minister would submit those plans to Parliament, just as the scheme for modernisation of the railways was submitted. Parliament would then give authority for the amount of money to be raised over a period; and from that moment until the roads were completed, the Minister and Parliament having approved the plans and given the money, the highway authority would have complete control to work through the
1014
local authorities. A big staff would not he needed, for most of the technical staff are already with the local authorities, and I am told that at the present time those men are not employed in their full technical capacity.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, so that I may better follow his argument, would he propose that such a road authority should take over all roads or only trunk roads? Where would they stop?
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. As the noble Lord will understand, this is only a suggestion at this stage but I propose that they take over all new road construction. Further, I visualise that this authority would be comparatively temporary. When a trunk road was completed it would be handed over to the Minister for maintenance, as is done now. When a classified road was completed it would be handed over, as now, to the local authority. If the urgency brought about in road construction by the inauguration of this authority were such as I believe it might be, then possibly in thirty or forty years' time the authority could be abolished. We should have the road system we want and maintenance would still come under the Minister or local authorities. That is an outline of the proposal. Perhaps I have gone into too much detail too early, but there has been so much vague talk that I am putting forward certain suggestions for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
I would again stress the important point that the authority would be making roads and doing nothing else. I am told that the Minister has other duties. This is not an attack on my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, or on the Ministry of Transport. I believe that they are now beginning to see, or have already seen, the green light; but there are one or two others who have not. I do not believe that a Government Department can make the road system that we need. They have other things to do, and this is a whole-time job for technical experts. I am not expecting my noble friend Lord Selkirk, when he comes to reply, to say, "We love the idea of a highway authority and we think road loans are marvellous." But these are not only my ideas: they are the collective

1015
ideas of civil engineers, members of local authorities, road users, road contractors and others. I beg Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that a plan such as I have outlined will receive their detailed consideration without any hostile feeling; for without wishing to say anything that I should not say, I know that in Government circles (and I use the term in its widest sense) there are certain vested interests who will naturally give such a proposal a hostile reception at the start. I beg the Government to consider this matter seriously.
4.48 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, with many other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for putting this Motion on the Order Paper today. Many noble Lords seriously believe that if road construction is not tackled firmly and at once, the industrial life of this country will stop growing, like a bed of flowers that is covered with weeds. The ground has been pretty well covered by previous speakers and I will confine myself to four points. Three of them are questions of which I have tried to give the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government notice, though I regret it was rather short notice. Like the noble Lord. Lord Sandhurst, I do not think that the present £147 million plan can really tackle this problem; but assuming that it will do so, I should like to ask the noble Earl, in regard to the spending of that particular money over the period 1955–59, whether any amount allocated but unspent in a particular year may be added to the amount already allocated for the following year, so that we do not lose money which was envisaged to be spent but has remained unspent. So often money can be allocated for a purpose and, when it is not all spent, instead of continuing the work afterwards, that unspent money is shown as a surplus and is never devoted to the purpose for which it was allocated by Parliament.
Now two questions of detail, but important detail. I should like to know what is the estimated cost of the Severn Bridge itself. I do not ask what the cost will be with all the suggested by-passes and so on; I want to know the cost of the bridge itself and the simple roads to it connecting with the nearest existing main roads. This is important, for we have
1016
had this proposal turned down time and time again because it was said that the cost would be far too great. I do not believe that it would be if, to start with, we just went for the bridge alone and the simple roads to it connected to the existing main roads. It is a scheme for which plans already exist. I believe that the steel was there at one time, but it was used during the war for other purposes. This is a scheme which could be got on with right away. It would make an enormous difference to the traffic of South Wales, even without large by-passes and connecting roads. A further question which I should like to mention is one which was raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe: I refer to the question of the Cromwell Road extension and the fly-over or viaduct. Can the noble Earl tell me what views have been put forward by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee who, I am certain, must have discussed this matter? Will the scheme work without the flyover? I do not think it will. I think you will get a perfectly fantastic bottleneck in Tolgarth Road, and therefore you might as well not start out upon this project. I suggest that it is futile and that you might as well save the money.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, answered a question the other day about the serving of London Airport. When I was a member of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, I got to hear that the Ministry of Civil Aviation several years ago produced a Report which they gave to the Ministry of Transport, and in that Report they estimated the additional movements that would generate from London Airport when it was fully completed, over and above the normal traffic, and the difference it would make to the traffic on the Great West Road and traffic conditions in and out of London, over and above normal traffic. I believe that that Report is still with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and it is known to the Ministry of Transport. I believe the estimate was that there would be an additional 2,000 vehicles an hour, in and out. Now will the Cromwell Road extension handle that without a fly-over? I believe not. I only hope that this House can be told the views of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on this problem.

1017
I have a further point to make. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, quoted remarks made by the Prime Minister on June 11, including an allusion to the fact that new roads and good roads would help in reducing road accidents. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the very first resolution of the special conference of road safety organisations which was held at the end of 1952 and early in 1953. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was the Chairman. The Conference was convened under the auspices of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. The Ministry were represented, and so were all the road safety organisations. The first resolution—it was passed on January 5, 1953—stated that the Conference
" declares its strong conviction that more expenditure on road construction, maintenance and improvement is vital to the interests of road safety and calls upon the Government to take more effective action to deal with this most urgent problem."
As has been asked by a previous speaker, if that was the considered opinion of those road safety organisations as long ago as that, have we really been serious in our efforts to get the accident rate down?
I have one more point and it is this. It may sound an add statement in the way in which I put it. The Government have said in the past that more oil is going to he used to ally itself with atomic energy to produce the power we need in this country. As we are not getting as much coal as we should do, this is very desirable. But do not think the oil that will be obtained will be sufficient if we do not have the right amount of roads on which to run enough vehicles to use enough petrol. And the reason is this. In this country we now have some new refineries—very modern refineries. These refineries carry out various processes, including "cat-cracking" and polymerisation. With these processes the amount of fuel oil and petrol obtained from, say, a ton of crude oil are almost the same, together with, of course, much smaller quantities of paraffin lubricants and diesel oils. We shall not get the fuel oil that we shall require if these refineries do not have a demand for the petrol which they are producing in a practically equivalent amount at the same time. That is a thought which I leave with your Lordships. I think it well worthy of consideration.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is the noble Lord putting forward the most interesting idea that the time will arrive when petrol will have to be given away so that sufficient industrial oil may be produced?
LORD WALERAN: It could easily come to that, if the roads get jammed.
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord who has put before us some interesting ideas on financing future road programmes. I am merely going to say a few words which will apply even if Her Majesty's Government turn down flat suggestions which have been made. In that event, there would still, I think, be a great deal that might be done within the amount of money that has been proposed. One must realise that the only source of money for the roads in one shape or another is taxation, and the only way to increase the size of the slice of the cake which you can cut for the roads is to bake sa bigger cake—that is, unless some of the suggestions put forward today are acceptable. Lord Lucas of Chilworth asks what has America got that we have not got. I would reply that something we have that America has not got is the Welfare State, and it is very, very expensive. It takes a big slice out of the same cake—the only cake there is, I agree that a state of emergency exists, in connection with the subject we are discussing, and it must be considered and faced with imagination and determination. Rapid action is necessary if we are not to suffer damage to our export market on which the whole country depends.
I want to consider for a moment whether Her Majesty's Government have any chance of spending the money with-in the time which they propose to allocate. I am not going to concern myself greatly with the main motorways, except to point out the anomaly that the Government appear to be quite happy about designing arid constructing 70 m.p.h. motorways at vast expense, and at the same time are completely unable to abolish the 20 m.p.h. speed limit. I am not trying to be funny. Somthing must be done about the 20 m.p.h. speed limit.
Before a national road project can be started, approximately twelve administrative stages have to be gone through, a

1019
number of which concern more than one Ministry. With the best will in the world, if the scheme goes through without a hitch, it will take a year: it cannot be done in less. Then, after the stage when the project has gone before a public inquiry, the chairman of the investigation committee has to submit an impartial report to the Minister. In practice, in the past there has been a delay of another eighteen months before an Order is made by the Minister, and no one has given any reason to think that it will be any different in future. I do not know what happens during that eighteen months and no reason has ever been given for that long delay. After the Minister of Transport has made his Order, the money for the project has to be authorised out of the main yearly authorisation. If the date happens to be wrong, the promoters of the project may have to wait until the next financial year before they get any money; and it is not until they have the money that they can start detailed drawings and designs of the scheme.
Having done that, they have to produce tender-documents and the contractors are given six weeks or two months in which to submit tenders. I have tendered for many jobs and I know that it is a big task. Finally, the successful tenderer must have a month or more in order to get his plant on to the site. Often if there is a lot of concrete work, the contractor has to set up a batch of plant, and it may be two or three months after that before the contractor can start earning money, which means before the Government can start spending money. National schemes have little chance of getting away to a flying start. As things stand at the moment, if the money allocated is not used by the end of the year, it goes into the general pool and may be used to buy false teeth and wigs; and those who look for road improvement have missed their money.
I think that a certain amount might be done on other lines. The results of the traffic census taken last autumn have not been published yet, but I know the results for my own county. They show that, compared with through roads, the Class 1 roads carried 43 per cent. more traffic. If that is the same in other counties (I have no means of telling, but that is likely), it shows the importance of Class 1 roads. Class 1 roads are 25 per cent.
1020
rate-borne. Everyone talks of the unfair burden of taxation on industry, but factories are not normally rated, and the people who are rated pay for 25 per cent. of the Class 1 roads—though possibly that is beside the point.
In a large number of cases, for a trifling expenditure compared with the sort of figures we are accustomed to use in talking of road construction, ordinary two-lane roads could be converted into three-lane roads, which then would be able to carry somewhere in the region of double the amount of traffic. In most cases the sum involved would be in the vicinity of £6,000 a road mile, which is far different from the £250,000 a mile for sonic of the big schemes. We are fortunate in having the Road Research Laboratory, which is doing successful, thorough, painstaking and plodding, research work. It is not in the forefront, but its work is going on all the time behind. We have scientists second to none in the world. The results of the research work done in America. Europe and the Commonwealth are studied and I think we can consider with justification that we can establish our road construction design on a sound basis. The old days of guess-work and of the fads of one person or another are over. The design of a road should be based on the traffic flow with which it is intended to deal and it should be capable of carrying the critical flow.
I would ask noble Lords to notice, the next time they drive around the countryside, that there is sufficient ground within the fences of most roads already to enable another five or six feet to be taken in to turn the road from a two-lane into a three-lane 33 ft. road. If we do that, the carrying capacity of the road is doubled for a comparatively small cost. The cost of the purchase, where it is necessary, of a strip of ground, is insignicant, because an acre of ground two yards wide is 2,420 yards long. That is a long way and an acre of ground does not cost very much; and that is all that is necessary to turn some of our smaller roads into good three-lane roads.
Then there are lay-bys and off-road bus stops, of the advisability of which scientific opinion has no doubt. The idea that a lay-by or an off-road bus stop must be up to the same standard as a running road is absolute rubbish. Why not scrape

1021
the turf off, lay a Somerfield track and so construct a lay-by or off-road bus stop for a few pounds? And if the bus stop is put in the wrong place through lack of experience, it can be shifted farther along the road with the greatest ease. At the same time sources of accidents and traffic jams arc removed from the road. This sort of work could be done without all the permits and paraphernalia that has to be gone through for a major scheme. An enormous amount of that kind of work could be done within the amount of money allocated—money which, so far as I can see, is not likely to be used anyway.
On the Continent and in America they have built off-road parking places on their great motorways, and so important do they consider this that they have provided continuous parking strips right alongside. Again, all we need to do in this country, as an interim measure, is to abolish that dangerous hazard, the high kerb. That descends from the day of the old whin-stone kerb and iron tyre. Last week the Ministry of Transport finally gave up the Battle of the Kerb. Since last week, or possibly the week before, we have been allowed to construct a road without a high kerb, and get the grant. That is a great step forward. You cannot get off the road if there is a high kerb to bounce over. Not only that, but a road, like ground, is not all it appears. If the Government or a local authority compulsorily purchase ground it has one value, but if sold in the open market it has a different value. A road has its measured width, and it has its apparent width to the driver using it. You will find that if there is a high kerb no driver will go within two feat of it, which means that the road is diminished by 4 feet anyway. With a clear definition of the edge, a flush kerb and traffic lanes marked so that the driver can see where he is, the driver might utilise the road to its full capacity. That is all I have to say on the actual roads.
LORD DERWENT: I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but before he leaves the question of roads I may say that I am interested in his suggestion of lay-bys. Has he thought of the problem that if the turf is just scraped or, in wet weather dirt and muck will be carried on to the road and the surface will become unsafe? Could my noble friend amplify that?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I recommended the use of the Somerfield track, which, I believe, even if it did not entirely abolish that, would make it a minimum consideration; and sand could be used under the Somerfield track. That would get over the difficulty, although it would be more expensive.
Then there is the question of bottlenecks. In my opinion, it is useless spending money on a road and running traffic on to a bottleneck. As other noble Lords have said, we might just as well not spend the money. It is like water going through a pipe: you get no more water through the tap by merely putting a bigger pipe behind it. Moreover, it is useless for one local authority to improve their stretch of road if the next-door local authority do not improve theirs. Therefore, I suggest that all these improvements—and they are minor improvements—should be considered, and the Ministry of Transport, or some appropriate authority, should make a cost benefit appreciation of a whole route between two destinations, not batches here and there. They should consider the cost of widening to a standard width throughout, a slight realignment, elimination of bottlenecks, elimination of black spots—based on results of before-and-after experiments carried out by the Road Research Institute here, and by other people in collaboration with them, which have had spectacular results —the provision of flush kerbs and marked traffic lanes, lay-bys and off-road bus stops, and (an important point in certain places) improved signs.
I think those matters should all be considered on a cost benefit appreciation, and if the cost is too great and the benefit too little there are plenty of other schemes which have a better cost benefit result which could be done first. Nearly all this work could be started almost at once, and funds should be made available out of the existing allocation of money. I do riot think there would be a shortage of funds, because I am sure they cannot be used up, anyway, in the early stages. Another point that should be borne in mind is that, with increasing traffic, Her Majesty's Government may find that in five or six years' time they are faced with such a problem that they will be digging up every road in the country, and no one will be able to move at all. If a start is not made now the situation will get worse and worse.

1023
The practice of freezing funds to the year has been touched on as being expensive, and there are two other reasons for this view which I should like to give. A job may last longer than the surveyor thought it would when he estimated; he cannot foretell weather conditions; he cannot foretell his difficulties of access; he cannot foretell whether the land is going to be bought or whether there will be a hold-up when he has to put in his estimate. Therefore he starts the job, and he sees the time by which his money must be used up approaching nearer and nearer. It happens in my county, I know —and one finds local authorities working costly overtime in order to get the money spent. Another thing one sees is a bituminous carpet being put down in doubtful weather. It may be said: "It is not perfect, but if I do not put it down now I shall not get the money for it." The result is that that carpet has not the life it would have if it were put down in ideal conditions, and money is wasted on that score. Those are two other points to amplify what noble Lords have said.
I am not convinced that we are tackling this accident problem as we might. I believe that the Ministry of Transport have a potent new weapon to their hand —namely, television. Why not take the television camera on to a busy main road and have a commentator pointing out good and bad driving, selfish and dangerous driving? Why not demonstrate the Highway Code on the television in the home and then dramatise an accident? One can think of all sorts of ways of putting it over to people who do not read—and some of them cannot. The Highway Code is fine, but it is not put over. On television there could be shown a pretty girl on the back of a motor cycle and how four or five seconds' carelessness involves her in an accident. I think good results would be forthcoming from something of that sort. I have detained your Lordships too long already, and in conclusion I want only to offer my sympathy to the Minister of Transport in the difficult problem he has to face and to assure him that, if I have teemed critical, I have not intended to be so.
5.18 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it has been said that our climate consists of nine months winter and three
1024
months very bad weather. I think that the recent good weather, coupled with the railway strike, has made us all acutely aware of the appalling problems of our roads. I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time, but there are three small points that I should like to put forward for consideration. The first deals with sonic suggestions for modification of our present roads; the second concerns access to the new trunk roads when they are built; and the third is a plea for a speed restriction.
My first point is a little on the same lines as one made by my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, who suggested that we might increase the capacity of some of our existing roads. I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would entirely agree, but I believe that much might be done by increasing, the number of sections of first-class roads which might be inserted in the existing roads. In my view, such a provision would help to clear some of the interminable delays and blockages which occur on our so-called main roads. I should like to give your Lordships one example of the kind of thing we all know so well —it is a road extremely well known to me and, I do not doubt, to a number of your Lordships. I refer to a stretch of the London—Hastings main road between Tonbridge and Flimwell. The distance is roughly fifteen miles and, broadly speaking, throughout that fifteen miles it is impossible to pass a slow-moving vehicle. If you get stuck behind a lorry or other slow traffic, the position is hopeless, and at the week-ends the traffic piles up into an endless slow-moving stream. I believe that if one or more sections of first-class double-track road—I mean a two-way road—could be inserted into bits of main road of that kind, it would have the immediate effect of clearing the trouble and allowing a reasonable passage for vehicles proceeding at a normal speed.
My second point concerns the question of access to the proposed new roads. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should take steps to deny absolutely any access of any kind to these new roads after they are built. No doubt the Government will take the necessary steps to restrict building. That is not my point. I would commend to your Lordships the idea which exists on the Continent in many places, and certainly on the

1025
autobahnen in Germany—that is to say, where all access of any kind is denied. By doing this, any temptation to try to overcome building restrictions is removed, because, obviously, if you may have no approach to a house or a building, if you may not have a front gate, you do not build. The road, in a sense, becomes something like a railway line upon which it is an offence to stray. I think many of us will remember the construction of the Great West Road. It was to be a sort of lifeline out of London; a wide highway sweeping, not without some beauty, through the countryside. If some provision as I have just suggested had existed it would have remained so; instead, it has become not only a death-trap but probably one of the most hideous stretches of country in Europe.
With regard to my third point, a speed restriction, I do not want to be misunderstood. What I am asking for is a minimum and not a maximum speed limit. I believe that on these new roads we should take steps to control slow traffic and, perhaps even more important, traffic which wishes to proceed slowly. These provisions exist on many of the trunk roads in America. Traffic has to proceed at 40, 45 or 50 miles per hour, according to what is decided; or, alternatively, it must use another route. I believe that there ale some people who would like to see some such provision as this brought into force on some of our existing roads. But that, I fear, would hardly be practicable, and might not be altogether popular. We are accustomed to seeing on the back of cars little notices put up by courteous drivers, "Please pass—running in." During the strike I happened to come up behind a car driven by an equally courteous driver, and he had put up a notice, "Please pass—worn out."
I think we have all had the experience of driving along a twisting road and coming behind a somewhat elderly car, driving a yard or a yard and a half out from the left-hand curb at 25 or even 20 miles per hour. Through the back window you see an upright and rather dignified figure, perhaps wearing a grey hat, and all over the back of that figure is written, "I know my rights. I am a careful driver." No doubt beside him sits the wife, placidly admiring "George's" careful driving. What
1026
"George" is really doing is setting the stage for a major accident, because, sooner or later, as the traffic piles up behind him, somebody is going to do something foolish. I hope that I am not being too light-hearted, but I went not long ago to an American gangster film. At one stage the gangster got hold of his victim and was hustling him from one place to another. He turned to his victim, and said. "Now, no funny business because I irritate easy." I think that in the circumstances which I have just described, we all "irritate easy;" and sooner or later someone pulls out of that stream, and that is when a major accident occurs. I do not like restrictions any more than do your Lordships, particularly those of us who sit on these Benches. But in all seriousness, I think there is much to be said for the control of slow-moving traffic. It may be that in time to come we shall find ourselves in the rather odd and unforeseen position of having, in addition to "speed cops" on our roads, what may in time coma to be known as "sloth cops."
5.27 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate this afternoon, and I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I heartily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, has said about the slow menace, the grey-coated gentleman who "knows his rights." Of course, that is what our American visitors at once notice in this country—the slowness with which our traffic moves on the main roads. In their country all their cars are more powerful than ours, and practically every car moves at the same speed. I listened with great interest to what the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, had to say about "make do and mend"—I think one might use a naval expression—and I am sure a great deal could be done at less cost by adopting some of his ideas.
The only point I wish to make is to add my plea to hat of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, in regard to the fly-over at Hammersmith Broadway. I should not have mentioned it again this afternoon, after it had already been spoken about by two other noble Lords, but I happened I to sit on the Private Bill Committee of

1027
the London County Council and Middlesex Improvement Act in 1936. It was the very first Private Bill Committee on which I ever sat after joining your Lordships' House, and it created a great impression on me. As your Lordships know, on these Committees every detail of the scheme is investigated thoroughly. I am sure that all of us who sat in that Committee room would have been absolutely horrified if we had thought the lynchpin of the whole scheme, which is this flyover, was to be abandoned. I know that Her Majesty's Government will not allow the scheme to be ruined, as I am sure it would be, by omitting this fly-over.
5.29 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I have only two points to make. The first is that I should be sorry to see it go out from this House that one can do anything very much by having loans. Whether you have a loan, or get the money in any other way, you will cause inflation unless you reduce your other investments. There is only a limited amount of national effort available. If you simply take it out of consumption goods there will be fewer consumption goods for sale, and prices will go up. You cannot take it out of your export goods because our balance of payments is already in a difficult position. The only way in which you can get the money without inflation is to force the people to consume less by taxation. Any loan, or anything of that sort, unless it is counterbalanced by a reduction of other investment, will not do any good at all in our present financial position. It may be that spending money on the roads may be a better investment than investing it in some other way. That would have to be considered; but one cannot have it both ways.
I should not actually have intervened if it had not been that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred at some length to Oxford and its problems. On the last occasion that these matters were mentioned, I think a somewhat inaccurate description of the University's attitude may have found its way into the debate. In order to anticipate any acidity from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in his reply, I would say at once that I have lived in Oxford for thirty-five years and, to that extent, it may be considered that
1028
I am biased. On the other hand, it may be considered that I know something about the place. Possibly knowledge is equally as valuable as bias in this matter.
The Oxford traffic problem is entirely bound up with the congestion round Carfax, the centre of the city. Not only do the east—west and north—south roads cross there, but it forms the principal shopping centre. For years Oxford City, the University and everybody have begged Whitehall to complete the outer by-passes. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, two quadrants have been built, not even adjacent quadrants, and the other two quadrants have been left unfinished. At last, one, the northwestern by-pass, is now to be completed. That has just been agreed. The city will build a junction between the London and Cowley roads and the Abingdon road which adjoins the south-western by-pass. We hope that this will considerably ameliorate the position of the through-traffic. The through traffic, of course, consists mainly of very large vehicles, and they cause far more congestion than the small vehicles which carry the local traffic.
There has, however, been a traffic count, and we shall be told: "Ah, but 80 per cent. of the traffic is local traffic." I very much distrust those counts, because they were made a long time ago and the position varies from day to day and season to season. One can never be sure whether or not they are counting bicycles and equating them with great lorries. But supposing we admit that there may be some truth in the assertion, for the streets are relatively empty on Thursday afternoons (Thursday is early closing day in Oxford), obviously, the proper solution is to build up a shopping centre on the other side of the river. There are now more people living on the other side of the river than in the City of Oxford proper, but all the big shops in Oxford are within 200 yards of Carfax, the centre of the city.
The plan of the city, which was approved by the University and the Preservation Trust, was to complete the by-passes and build up a shopping centre in Cowley, and see whether that would not save the situation. After years of delay the Minister insisted that he would pass the plan only if proposals for internal by-passes were added; and that, of

1029
course, "put the cat amongst the pigeons." All the "cranks" in Oxford came forward with their own particular plans—including, as the noble Lord has pointed out, vandalism such as cutting right through Christ Church meadow and the University Parks and all sorts of schemes like that. Most of us believe that that is a completely useless suggestion. Carfax is crowded because people want to go to the shops at Carfax. It is no use having other roads to Carfax: it will only make the situation worse. If you are annoyed by a lot of wasps coming round the honey or the jam at your breakfast table, you do not make things better by opening a couple more windows. You take the honey or the jam and put it outside. That is what we propose should be done in Oxford.
As I have said, not many University people support these weird plans. Your Lordships may have noticed that a few days ago a letter appeared in The Times which gave a good description of the situation. It was signed by most of the heads of colleges in Oxford. I hope that due notice will he taken of that. One proposal, made by the Minister and supported by one or two people, including the Warden of New College who, in the course of rotation, is at this moment Vice-Chancellor, was that we should close Magdalen bridge and, thereby, the High Street. You might just as well say that you should reduce the congestion round Charing Cross by closing the Strand at Aldwych. If people who want to go there have to go by another road, it will, not make the congestion less in the centre of the city.
It has been said: "If we close the High Street we can put the relief roads further out and the motorists will have to use them—though otherwise they would prefer the High Street." But all motorists go, not by the shortest way in miles, but by the quickest way. No motorist would mind going an extra half mile along an unencumbered road rather than by the crowded High Street because it is a few hundred yards shorter. We in Oxford—and I speak here for the majority of the city and the University— should like to go back to our original plan: complete the outer by-passes, if possible, or at any rate complete the one that has been agreed; let the city join up the London road and the southwestern by-pass; and build up shopping
1030
centres on the other side of the river. We believe that that will solve most of our problems. At any rate, let us proceed step by step and see whether that does not solve the problem. Then we can examine the possibility of tunnels or other methods. What we want to do is to go ahead with the plan and not have imposed on us the so-called inner relief roads which we believe would bring no relief and would certainly spoil our existing amenities.
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that this debate has been characterised by contributions from speakers many of whom have spoken with great authority on the matter of urgency. Also it has been characterised by a certain sense of suspicion of alt Governments. I think there is a certain justification for that view, although if any third party had listened to some speeches and had not known the facts he would hardly have guessed that we were just: introducing a substantial new road programme. In fact, anyone listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would never have guessed that the programme is at something like ten times, the level it was when the noble Lord was at the Ministry of Transport. But I do not want at this time to argue the broad issues, which we dealt with just over a year ago, on the importance both to the economy and to the safety of the country. I do not want to cover that ground again, but will go straight on to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and say what we are doing to answer them.
I should like to take straightaway the noble Earl's questions which we have written out in front of us and deal shortly with them. First, he asks whether the expanded roads programme will be sufficient to meet future needs. What has been announced so far is simply the second instalment of an expanding programme which, as the Minister said on February 2 of this year, is intended to provide this country with an up-to-date system. This is merely an instalment of a programme, and we hope that other instalments will follow in due course. It is an expanded programme and, indeed, an expanding programme, and should be regarded as such. It is much larger than what has been possible in the years that

1031
have passed and it is considerably bigger than is probably realised at the present time.
Secondly, the noble Earl asked for a return to show the progress which has been made—I imagine he has in mind something akin to the returns of house building which we have been putting out month by month. I doubt whether it is possible to put forward a progress report of the road programme in any statistical form, or indeed whether it could be usefully modified for presentation in that sort of way. At the same time my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will be glad, should he be asked to do so, to make statements from time to time showing what progress is taking place—as the noble Earl is aware, he in fact made one last Wednesday describing the general progress that has been made.
The third question he asked was whether this matter would be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Here I can assure the noble Earl that that is what my right honourable friend is seeking to do, and that is the view which is shared by the highway authorities who, in the majority of cases, are acting as his agents in the construction of trunk roads, and upon whom to a large extent the necessary work is falling. I will deal with that point a little further in a moment.
The fourth question which the noble Earl asked was whether the Government propose to bring forward additional proposals. In considering this point it is quite clear that the statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made yesterday must be borne in mind. At the same time, I can say that the Government intend to carry through the programme on roads which has already been announced. That programme covers ten of the fifteen places which I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned in the course of his remarks. It also covers thirty schemes which have been authorised, all of over £100,000 each. I think the noble Earl can rest assured that this is a considerable programme; but in regard to additional programmes I can only answer that the decision which the Government will come to will necessarily depend on the continuing economic strength of the country in the future.
A good deal of emphasis has been laid in the course of this debate on the word
1032
"continuity." Of course, in any subject continuity will depend in the first place on peace abroad and stability at home. Those are the first conditions which necessarily will permit any continuity to take place. But I can say that what the Minister of Transport said on February 2 requires no alteration. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 536, col. 1100]:
"It is the Government's firm intention to continue with a substantial programme of road construction and improvements—at least on the scale I have indicated—until the roads of this country are adequate for the traffic they have to bear."
A short time ago he said it was necessarily a matter of legitimate discussion whether the programme should be larger or not, and he said frankly that he was working on the basis not only that there is, but that there will be, a very great expansion in the number of vehicles on the roads—he considers it quite likely that by 1980 there will be four times the number of private cars on the roads as compared with 1939.
It is no more than a platitude to say that no Government can bind itself for the future. Far less can it bind any other Government. But I should like to examine some of the proposals, which have been made to-day with great determination and a great deal of thought, to see whether there cannot be some assured continuity. One proposition which has not been made, but which I suppose could have been made, is that we should draw a map showing the final development of our road system in this country and then work backwards to decide how much should be done each year. I do not think that gets us very far. It would rather tie us down to a programme which in the end might not be entirely what is wanted. A great deal of support was suggested for floating a substantial loan. I was glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Cherwell, who speaks with such authority in this matter, said, because I think it is substantially the answer to this question. The limits of road construction today arise from the strain that a too rapid expansion would impose on an already extended economy. There are, of course, other considerations which enter into it, but it is impossible to build up a road programme very quickly; it has to be built up step by step. At the present time there is no difficulty in carrying this

1033
programme from budgetary sources. None the less, if it should prove necessary or desirable at some future time, we have no objection in principle to using the loan system.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the possibility of a highway authority. I wonder whether that takes us a great deal further in solving this problem. If one takes the railways, one finds they were held up for a long time from carrying out what everybody agreed were necessary capital improvements but which the economy of the country did not permit to take place. They were an independent corporation. What noble Lords want (this applies particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Dement, who made a very interesting speech to-day) is, to put it bluntly, to obtain money from taxation without Parliamentary control. That is just what it amounts to.
LORD DERWENT: Surely Parliament would have the power both of granting loan facilities and of withdrawing them. That seems to give Parliament control.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is exactly the position; therefore in that case you are not one step ahead of where you are now. That is the difficulty with all these proposals: you come back exactly to the same position. Parliament must be in control of any money raised from taxation, and if Parliament does riot want to spend the money then no system, whether it be by way of loan or by way of highway authority, will really be in a position to avoid this difficulty. That is why I doubt whether there is a great deal to be said on that line, or whether there is a great deal of advance to be made at the present time in that direction. I think by far the most important thing of all is that there is absolutely no disagreement in this House, or in any part of it, that this programme must go forward. I think that that agreement extends much wider than that: it is all over the country. There is a determination that we will have a better road system in this country. Quite frankly, in a country such as this that is by far the best assurance that something will continue to be done.
There was a great deal of talk to-day about the slowness with which things were developing. As is always the way when a programme is announced, everyone hopes and expects that it will be com-
1034
pleted almost before the Minister of Transport has stopped speaking. There has been a lot of talk and the usual accusations on all sides of bureaucratic delays and controls. It is proper to remember that we do not live in a dictatorship country, and that whatever disadvantages there may be in having a dictatorship, that form of government has considerable advantage when it comes to planning roads. It is no coincidence that the first big roads in Europe were all built under a dictatorship of one kind or another. We in this country do not do it in that way; we have a number of other considerations in mind. For instance, my right honourable friend has to early out the provisions laid down in the Trunk Roads Acts of 1936 and 1946 and the Special Roads Act, 1949. The procedure necessarily varies a good deal, but I was interested to note that the only noble Lord who had any sympathy with this point of view was the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who, as a civil engineer, speaks with great authority and knows the difficulties which have to be faced when one carries out a programme of this character.
At the risk of boring your Lordships, may I explain these statutory provisions? It is no good being unrealistic and pretending that they do not exist. In the first place, what one might call the general preparatory scheme has to be laid out: that is to say, roughly, a proposed new road drawn on the map in outline. It is no use doing that too hurriedly, for if you do so you will probably have to start all over again. When this is done, the next step is to publish a Statutory Order setting out the general line of the route. Three months must elapse after publication, during which objections to the Order may be made. With any substantial Order one has to expect that there will be objections. One or more of these may require the holding of a public inquiry which will be conducted by a member of a panel completely independent of the Department. A report is made to the Minister for his consideration and it is quite possible that, as result of that consideration, it may be necessary to alter the scheme.
The possibility that the whole procedure will have to be carried out again only serves to emphasise that the preparatory work has to be done as carefully as possible. The further difficulty arises in

1035
connection with motorways inasmuch as they inevitably cut across a number of existing roads, generally requiring alteration of their line, and a Statutory Order must be published in respect of each point of intersection, with the usual opportunity for objection. It is really not possible to blame a Minister for observing the procedure which Parliament has laid down. He would be blamed for failing to carry out that procedure and, if he departed from it, he would be ultra vires; so there is no question of short-circuiting.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I followed the noble Earl's catalogue of time-schedules and, so far, I quite agree; but there is a gap for which he has not accounted. This afternoon he gave me the date on which the Order for a section of the Oxford ring road was signed—last Saturday, July 23. Three months has to elapse for all the various processes to be gone through, as the noble Earl quite rightly says; but the actual engineering proposals for that road were made, and passed by the Ministry, years ago. It was announced that those proposals were to be in the programme five months ago. Why does it take five months to sign an Order inviting objections to a scheme that has been in cold storage for five years?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord asks why it takes five months to prepare a scheme—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, the scheme was prepared five years ago, as were most of these schemes in the £147 million programme. This particular scheme was put in cold storage throughout the war. Why did it take five months to sign the Order?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can only conclude, and I believe I am correct in saying, that though the scheme was there, it was not there in sufficient detail. A certain amount of detail has had to be developed to bring the scheme up to date. There may have been changes. I will look into that point, but, of course, that is a matter of possibly only two or three months by which the scheme could be cut down.
I must go on with this somewhat gloomy catalogue. When we have completed the stage I have described, and
1036
when the Order has been made and the scheme authorised, we come to the third stage, the engineering work, working out intersections, bridges and borings, studying subsoil and foundations and bridge designs. Thereafter there are specifications and bills of quantity to be prepared. Then at that stage there is the acquisition of the land required. To some extent that can take place contemporaneously with other stages, or even earlier, but if compulsory powers have to be invoked it may well take up to eight or twelve months at least. Only then does the construction work begin. I have given your Lordships these details because I believe it is important to realise that we cannot go forward unchecked unless we are prepared to some extent to sacrifice our respect for individual rights, and Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to do so. That is the price we have to pay, and I believe that in these circumstances we are quite right.
The first stage of the motor road is now being put in hand and it is hoped that the Order in respect of the first section, from the St. Albans by-pass to Dun-church, will be ready for publication in September of this year. This motor road will consist of a dual carriage-way with three traffic lanes each way and will also have a shoulder or hardstanding on each side to enable any car which wishes to stop to pull out at any point along the road. I consider that is a very valuable addition. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, mentioned the question of access. I can assure him that there will be no access. There will be only six junctions between St. Albans and Dun-church and all these intersections will be constructed so as to enable traffic to pass through unimpeded.
May I say a word on the size of the programme. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has referred to the New Jersey Turnpike or the Baltimore Road. It is easy to give illustrations of American accomplishments, but one must be careful about making comparisons. I am told that all the preliminary work on this road, the acquisition of land and the detailed engineering, was done before the period of two years which has been calculated.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl is quite right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that we can do exactly the same thing arid that the actual construction work will take exactly the same time here. Moreover, I am told that one of these roads was constructed along the line of an old railway and that there were foundations which substantially assisted the progress of the work, though that is a matter on which I am not very well informed. I should like to speak on the size of the programme, because people sometimes get confused over the aspects of commitments and of expenditure. Our commitments last year were a little under £20 million on major improvements and new construction. This year it will be £27 million, and next year and in the two following years it will be about £40 million each year. This means that our commitments have increased over tenfold in a period of five years. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, asked about these commitments extending over a number of years. A commitment is not exactly a Parliamentary Vote; there is no question of its slipping back into the Exchequer at the end of the year. It is an undertaking to meet that amount when it arises. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked about grant unexpended at the end of the year returning to the Exchequer. This arises only in respect of maintenance and not in the case of major improvements. The difficulty with commitments is that people may say they give an exaggerated picture of how far we are going. Taking the other measure, expenditure, this considerably underestimates what has been achieved, because it is surprising how long it is after the completion of a scheme before the bill comes in.
I will give the picture as we see it—the figures were substantially quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Last year the expenditure was £5 million; this year it will be rather over £8 million; and in the following three years expenditure will be rising fairly sharply to about £90 million over the whole of that three-year period. It is worth remembering that this is only central Government expenditure and excludes local government expenditure, for which can be added about 12 or 15 per cent. The figures also exclude expenditure on maintenance, local and national, running at about £70 million a year. Moreover, they take no account of expenditure on motor roads,
1038
which is over and above the expenditure, and indeed the commitments, which I have already mentioned.
I think it is fair to say that, by any criterion, we are taking a really substantial step forward. I will add this in regard to the future. We are now picking up with the matter of the preparation of schemes for the future. Up to now, in a great many cases we have not been able to do much more than exercise planning control in areas of development, which of course are a relatively small percentage of the areas in which roads will be required. Now, however, we hope that as the programme gains momentum planning will be carried out very much further ahead, so that the detailed engineering work can proceed almost as soon as the schemes are approved. I can assure the House that the two further motor ways, both from Birmingham to the Preston by-pass and the road to the Doncaster by-pass, are being carried out. Preparatory schemes are going ahead, and the programme includes tunnels and fly-overs.
Lord Derwent—and Lord Stonehaven also—emphasized the question of efficiency in constructing our roads. I entirely agree. While I will not attempt to reply in detail to the whole of the points raised by the two noble Lords, I can say this with regard to the question of kerbs. I think we are all glad to know that the Ministry only last week sent out a circular in which they advised local authorities that they should not in future put vertical kerbs on the side of the roads except where a footway adjoins the carriageway or where, for any reason, it is dangerous for the vehicles to leave the carriageway. What is now required —and I should like this to get as much publicity as possible—is that local authorities should implement the recommendations made by the Minister. Another recommendation was that where kerbing is necessary to prevent the roads spreading, kerbs should be flush with the carriageway or splayed at an angle of forty-five degrees. We think this will tend to make the roads more useful over their whole extent, safer and less expensive, and I hope that local authorities will pay full attention to the recommendations in the circular.
I hope that noble Lords will not think I am unduly cowardly if I do not enter

1039
into this Oxford discussion, Lord Lucas of Chilworth has expressed himself very strongly on this point. I will only express the view that this is certainly a matter of national importance. I can assure noble Lords that it is engaging the attention both of the Minister of Transport and of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The noble Lord suggested—and it is a highly improbable suggestion —that perhaps they might not agree on the subject. The noble Lord is well aware that there is a perfectly normal constitutional procedure which can be adopted if that highly unlikely contingency ever eventuated. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, asked about the Severn bridge. He probably knows these figures, but, none the less, I will give them to the House. The bridge itself, it is believed, would cost about £10 million, and what we think would be proper approaches would cost £6 million. It is also true that approaches of a sort could be provided for about £2 million; but we think that these would be quite inadequate for the scheme as such.
The noble Lord raised other questions including that of the Hammersmith flyover. This is a classified road and, therefore, responsibility for it lies with the London County Council. That Council is not convinced that the fly-over is necessary. Frankly, my right honourable friend would like a fly-over. I am not sure that I know what the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee say about this, or whether they have made a recommendation upon it. But, as I have said, my right honourable friend would like to see a fly-over. The position, however, is that the London County Council are going ahead with the scheme in such a way that a fly-over can be added at a later stage if it should prove necessary.
LORD WALERAN: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl unduly, but the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, I think, is a statutory body under the 1924 Act. Does not any such scheme have to come before the Committee?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am told that they do not make specific recommendations on matters of this character. In any case, the matter lies with the
1040
London County Council, and it is for them to take the decision.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, mentioned lay-bys. I agree that probably it would be better if we had more of them. On classified roads, of course, lay-bys are the responsibility of the highway authorities concerned. So far as trunk roads are concerned, the Department is providing additional—lay-bys where necessary.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have not answered all the questions raised in the debate this afternoon. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend will be grateful for the care which noble Lords who have spoken on the subject have taken in the preparation of their speeches. Finally, I should like to say just this. This is only the beginning of an expanded road programme, and it would be quite wrong to pretend that the problem of traffic in this country will not be with us for a large number of years. In fact, I dare say it will be with us as long as motor cars continue to be a form of transport in this country. But I think we can fairly claim that we have made a start of real significance. We are most anxious to do it well, and my right honourable friend is determined, within the statutory limitations which I am afraid I bored your Lordships by describing, that it shall proceed with the utmost expedition.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that I regret—though I quite understand—that he has been unduly cowardly. He has not answered a number of specific questions which I asked him. I know his difficulties and I am not going to press him for answers this afternoon. But perhaps he would look at my questions and consider them in consultation with the Minister. May I have the noble Earl's assurance that he will consider them, and that he will write to me, because I shall not be able to return to this subject until after October 25, which is a long time ahead? If the noble Earl will give me that assurance, then I do not want to press him to answer this afternoon, except in the case of one question which was really important. I asked him in the course of my first two or three sentences whether the House was to take it that the road construction programme

1041
would be in danger of curtailment because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech yesterday. May I take it that the answer he gave the House, to the effect that that speech would have to be borne in mind, was an answer to my question, and that there is a risk that the road programme may have to be curtailed owing to economic circumstances?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thought that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quite fully when I spoke. What I said was this. We meet here after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a speech, and clearly we have to consider the implications of that speech. I said that the programme as announced would go forward as announced. I thought that that was a full answer to the question. If the noble Lord thinks that there is any other question of significance which I have not answered I shall be only too glad to communicate with him; but I was under the impression that I had answered all the noble Lord's questions.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am satisfied with that answer. The other questions, apart front the one which I have mentioned, were technical questions. I asked the noble Earl for an assurance about the A.40 road. I do not wish to press him on that, but will the noble Earl undertake to give me an answer after he has consulted his right honourable friend? I understand that the noble Earl assents, and I thank him.
6.10 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who has replied on behalf of the Government as fully as he could. He was obviously suffering under certain difficulties which he did not like to say anything about, as they were, perhaps, connected with matters behind the scenes. Before I reply to him, I should like to say a word about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. My Motion was drawn to relate to the roads of the country as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, seemed to think I said something about Oxford. Oxford is a great national town, but it is a very small one and a small piece of the general road traffic situation. I agree that it is an important one, but there are others just as important from the point of view of
1042
traffic. If we compare Oxford with Staines, Staines is just as important and much more difficult to deal with.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I mentioned Oxford because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I had no intention of raising it, but the situation of Oxford has often been misrepresented. I cannot say that I derived much comfort from the noble Earl's assurance that the Minister is considering the matter. What we want is to be allowed to get ahead with our own plans without ministerial interference.
EARL HOWE: Be that as it may, the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, also had a word to say about loans. I thought his arguments were first-class, but they would be equally sound if applied to electricity, the railways and all the rest. His argument was against loans in general. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Government do not altogether exclude the possibility of loans for road-building.
The reason why I submitted this question of loans to the noble Earl was not because I wanted to avoid Parliamentary control—that is the very last reason I can think of. The reason, which I tried to make clear in my remarks, is that we must get a guaranteed continuity of finance, and it does not seem to be possible to get that in any other way. If we have to depend on revenue, we get such speeches as we had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place yesterday, and as no doubt are being made to-day. Everybody realises the difficulty, but we cannot run the roads of this country on a "Stop" and "Go" policy. Either we have new roads or we do not; and if, in our wisdom, we decide not to have them, I tremble to think of what will be the state of affairs in a few years' time. I put it that in four or five years' time we shall be in a real mess. The Government have to consider that at the moment we have a prosperous motor industry sending valuable exports abroad. But we are being heavily challenged overseas, and we cannot expect to have a prosperous motor industry unless we have a prosperous home market, and for that people must be able to take the cars on the road. It seems to me vital to consider the whole of this programme in that light.

1043
The noble Earl talked about urgency. I wish I could think that the Government were tackling this in the spirit I am praying to see. It may be that, in common with many other people, I do not appreciate this half enough, but it seems to me that there is not sufficient urgency about their approach. With regard to the general programme, the noble Earl has not told us when any single item is likely to be completed. I repeatedly asked him whether he could tell us something about the completion of various schemes. If he is not able to reply to that now, perhaps he may be able to do so later on.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I did not go into the future of what will be done, but our general picture is that the preliminary procedure which I have described will take about two years; and the first motorway will take two or three years for construction after that date. That is the general broad picture: I do not want to go into more detail than that.
EARL HOWE: Take the Ashford by-pass, which did not feature on February 2. It is practically completed, all except about 100 yards, and all the Minister is doing is to add a fly-over junction at the end of it. Surely we can be told the position of the Ashford by-pass.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, so far as we know there is no reason why the work should not have been begun already, as it was authorised some time ago.
EARL HOWE: That is exactly what we wanted to hear from the noble Earl. So far as one can judge from one's own observations, not a sod has been turned. Why? If this has been considered as a matter of urgency, could not something have been done? Can the noble Earl not tell us something of his own suggestion, the construction of a second carriageway in Western Avenue between Park Royal and Greenford Halt? As the land is available, there are no difficulties about acquiring land and the work is merely an alteration to the plan of the road as it exists at the moment. Surely we can be told something about that?
The noble Viscount, Lord Leathers, said a short time ago that when he got the green light, he would be ready to go ahead. The light was beginning to turn green in February, and from what the
1044
noble Earl has said to-day, it is now well and truly green. Surely with a real sense of urgency about it, we should have been able to "get cracking" on many things. Another thing about which the noble Earl said nothing in his reply was the question of accidents. I gave some figures with regard to the local Manchester road and tried to show how we can reduce casualties by improving the road system; but nothing whatever has been said by the Minister on the subject of accidents. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for replying so far as he did. I only hope that he and his Department will not think I am too critical, but we are all bound to be critical in our extreme anxiety with regard to the road position as a whole. I do not think the programme is big enough or ambitious enough, but perhaps it is the best that can be done at the moment. I can only end by thanking all noble Lords who have supported me in this Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
6.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on their policy for the High Commission Territories. The noble Earl said: My Lords, only a week or so ago we debated the annual report on the Colonial Territories. We have had a number of colonial debates but the subject this afternoon—the High Commission Territories—is one that has rarely appeared on the Order Paper in this House. I think it would be true to say that there has been no debate on the general conditions in these territories and no Government statement for a considerable number of years. That is the reason why I put down the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper. The territories have come into the limelight once or twice, on occasions when there have been internal crises which have focused attention upon them for a short time, but in general there is a feeling in the country that these territories are in a state of what might almost be called stagnation. They are in a backwater off the main stream of colonial progress and development.
It is common knowledge that the future status of these territories is a matter in

1045
dispute between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa. What I want to put to the noble Earl is that that state of affairs does not relieve Her Majesty's Government of the responsibility for governing these territories and for pursuing policies that will ensure the progress and wellbeing of their inhabitants, which number well over 1 million in the three territories. Nearly all of them are Africans, and they suffer from problems which are not dissimilar from those of any other African territory. There is the same set-up of the traditional society; tribal forms of government, sometimes highly developed and organised; the ancient beliefs; and the impact on those of Western civilisation and industrialisation. If the stresses are the same as in the colonial territories, then I submit that the reactions must be the same. Therefore, the first question I want to ask Her Majesty's Government is what is their aim in the political field. Is the political advance in these territories adequate; and are they aiming at the same goal that the Colonial Office aim at in respect of the territories under their control?
Recently there has been published the Report of the Administrative Reforms Committee in Basutoland—the Moore Committee. It appears that the reception of that Report in Basutoland was not at all favourable. Of the three territories, Basutoland is probably the most advanced politically, and the most articulate, and I think it is true to say t net practically every organisation that gave evidence before the Moore Committee put forward the demand for further political advance—that is, to the stage of a Legislative Council: in other words, they asked to be put on the first rung of the ladder leading towards self-government. I wonder what the views of Her Majesty's Government are on the Report of that Committee. A similar demand is now being heard in both the other territories. I do not think anybody could say that the inhabitants of these territories are any less advanced than the inhabitants of many other colonial territories were at the time when they were given their first step towards responsible Government. Moreover, we owe it to the inhabitants of these Territories to give them every assistance in achieving their aims. We must not forget their remarkable war record: some 35,000
1046
men from the three territories served id Her Majesty's Forces, most of them in a combatant role in the Mediterranean and in Italy. I think their attitude in the war was expressed by the words of the Paramount Chief of the Basuto, who in September, 1939, in a proclamation to the Basutos, said that "as our King is at war, we are at war, too." I feel that we owe them something for their line record in the war.
There are social as well as political problems, and many of them derive from the fact that a large percentage of the population is absent working in the Union of South Africa at any one time. In one year, 1953, some 90,000 young men from the three territories went officially, by licence, to work in the Union, the great majority of them in the mines. And allowing for numerous others who stay on for more than a year, arid those who may have gone by other routes, something like 20 per cent. of the population must have been working away tram their homes. Naturally, that has produced many social problems, and I should like to hear what Her Majesty's Government have to say about that. On the education side, there seems to be a good deal of unevenness between the three territories. Basutoland—owing to the missions, I think—has always had an outstanding educational record; I believe they still have, and from the reports I have read their facilities seem to be considerably in advance of those of the other territories. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will be doing what they can to raise the level in the other territories. As to higher education we have heard that the new University of the Federation of Rhodesia, which is opening shortly, will take students from these High Commission Territories.
I should like to say a word about cooperatives because, from the reports I have read, it seems that, while in Basutoland there are the beginnings of a cooperative movement which shows some promise, there is nothing of the kind in the other two territories. It has been found in almost all the other colonial territories that co-operation is a potent influence in improving the agricultural basis of the country and in assisting agriculture and marketing. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to plant the seed of a co-operative movement in the other two territories. On the economic side, I do not think it

1047
is generally known how much money is being spent in these territories. Their Annual Reports are not easy to come by, and those of the Colonial Development Corporation do not give much detail. Having read the reports, I admit that I was impressed by the amount of money being spent and the number of schemes being carried out in these territories, and I think it should be more widely known that some £3 million has been spent in the three territories up to the end of last year. It seems that they are in no way being neglected on the economic side.
The Colonial Development Corporation have big interests in two of the territories: in Swaziland with forestry and irrigation, and in Bechuanaland with ranching; but there is no Colonial Development Corporation interest, so far as I can see, in Basutoland. I wonder whether there is not scope for some assistance of that kind to assist the wool and mohair industries, to try to get secondary industries, or in other ways. While on the subject of Basutoland, what has happened, I wonder, to the Orange River Hydro-Electric Scheme? It is a bold scheme which, when carried out, will bring enormous advantage not only to Basutoland but to the Union of South Africa. There is talk in certainly two out of the three territories of mineral development, and there are promising signs in Bechuanaland and in Swaziland. We should like to know what Her Majesty's Government envisage as the system of development of the mineral rights, and how the rights of the tribes owning that territory are to be safeguarded. I have tried to sketch out the subjects on which I think we should hear something from Her Majesty's Government but above all I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that Her Majesty's Government's policy is directed to steady progress and advancement of the people in those territories. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
6.32 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in what he has said. I do that for a personal reason, because for three years of my life in the middle part of this century I lived within an easy ride on horseback of the borders of Basutoland,
1048
and actually rode into Basutoland. I was practising as a doctor, and I employed in my house Basuto servants. I formed the highest opinion of their intelligence. I was not engaged in sociological research into what was going on in Basutoland, but I did inquire as to what was happening there and why all the Basutos I came across (who were intelligent people. and well developed physically as well as mentally) had not developed their country more than they had. There was rather a simple answer. As my noble friend has said. Basutoland was one of the recruiting grounds for the Rand Mines, and at the age of about twenty the young men were offered terms which then seemed luxurious in the way of money. They went up to the Rand and got money there, and then they came back but did not develop their own country. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply can say what is being done to develop the natural resources of Basutoland in the way of agriculture and the production of foodstuffs. That is a most important thing, and I hope something is being done about it.
I give my opinion for what it is worth and I hope it is worth something—that the Basutos are a very intelligent people who would be able to do not only good agricultural work (they certainly have done good work in the mines) but also good industrial work if small units of production could he set up. I gather from what I have recently been looking up that there has been little development indeed in Basutoland. I am afraid the answer is a simple one—that the young men have been taken away from Basutoland and when they come back their energy is exhausted and they go back to the primitive, tribal life and carry on their tribal customs as in the past. But I believe there is a great opportunity in Basutoland for development of the other Basutos, and for the making of a State as far advanced as, for instance, Nigeria. In 1940, when I visited Nigeria with other Members of the House of Commons, of which I was then a Member, we went all over the country and found that the people were not very highly developed and never mentioned any possibility of self-government. Now, after the lapse of a short time, they have got self-government. I believe that the Basutos are, if anything, superior to the Africans in West Africa, and I think we ought to

1049
make it the duty of this country to see that they are given the chance which their natural abilities and their peace-loving qualities—there has not been any trouble for a long time—give them a right to ask for.
6.35 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in dealing with this question, it seems to me that it is quite impossible to discuss the policy in relation to the High Commission Territories without considering, first of all, its relation to the Union of South Africa. Any question of minor policy must inevitably hinge upon the reply to the question: what future do Her Majesty's Government envisage for these territories? If I may say so, I think the noble Lord who spoke last, in referring to the future which he hoped would be guaranteed to these people, overlooked the fact that none of them are viable units, and it is not possible for any of them in any foreseeable future to be self-governing and independent in the sense that Nigeria or the Gold Coast—
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I intervene to say that I thought nothing of the sort? I think they are quite capable of self-government, probably at the present time, and I see no reason at all why they should not be given early self-government in their own interests, just as well as other countries.
LORD MILVERTON: Personal capacity is not the only thing necessary to make a country a viable unit; but perhaps I may develop that point as I go on. It is, it seems to me, easy to talk of this subject because of its superficial simplicity, but it is really an extremely complex one, as I see it. It is so easy to say that the reason why the High Commission Territories were not handed over to the Union in 1910 was doubt about the native policy of the Union. Time has not removed that doubt. Furthermore, the British Government are pledged not to consent to the transfer of these territories until Parliament here has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion, and until the people have been consulted. It is, I think, generally admitted that there was an understanding, rightly or wrongly, that the two Governments of the United Kingdom and the Union would collaborate in extending to the people of
1050
the territories the reasons why absorption in the Union would be of benefit to them. It is also understood that no promise was given that the lack of agreement by the majority of the people concerned would necessarily bar such a transfer if it was considered by the British Government to be in the best interests of the people.
I appreciate fully that the temper of world opinion, and so forth, has changed since 1910, and it would make such a transfer perhaps more difficult. But in 1933—I think it is worth looking hack at these points—the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, who is of unquestioned authority in this matter, stressed that, though formal consent of the inhabitants was not necessary, a greater measure of good will was needed; and machinery for creating good will had not been established. The same authority also said, significantly enough:
"It may perhaps he added that the task of those who oppose the transfer might have been easier if it could have been shown that the British Government had made more active attempts in the past to improve the material condition of the territories. The facts given elsewhere show, however, that it is only since the question of transfer has come to the fore that they have made any serious attempt to do so."
That is why I could not entirely agree with the noble Earl who asked this Question, unless his references were meant to be to very recent years. A good deal of money has been devoted to these territories in recent years, both from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund and from the Colonial Development Corporation itself, but before that I think it would be true to say that they were neglected. On several occasions during the past forty-five years, the transfer of these territories has almost been arranged, and then events have caused delay.
I suggest, with respect, that it is not enough to sit back and say that the onus is on the Union of South Africa to produce conditions which will make the inhabitants ask for incorporation and so honourably warrant the transfer by the British Government. Personally, I do not call that a policy: I call it drifting—unless drifting can be called a policy. It is very dangerous, in this case particularly, to allow the matter to drift. If the British Government do not intend actively to facilitate the transfer, I should like

1051
to ask what is their policy. None of the territories, as I see it, is economically viable as a separate State. They are not, and never will be, so far as I can see, eligible candidates for independent self-government. Meanwhile, their economic and political progress is held up by uncertainty about their destiny. In regard to consulting the people, Tschekedi Khama pointed out some years ago that in Bechuanaland there were no reliable means of ascertaining the views and wishes of the people. Their own chief said that if the British Government wished to consult them he did not know of any suitable way of really ascertaining their views. He said that consultation with chiefs and tribal assemblies would not be satisfactory as they were too easily misled. Advisory councils and joint advisory councils, he said, had no constitutional status and they were not accepted by Africans as qualified to represent them.
Let us look, for a moment, at the map. Basutoland, a country about the size of Belgium and with a population of 560,000 Africans, is completely surrounded by Union territory. Swaziland, a country about the size of Wales and with a population of 181,000 Africans, is bounded on three sides by Union territory and on the fourth by Portuguese East Africa. Bechuanaland, the third of them, a country about the size of France, England and Wales put together, and with a population of only 292,000 Africans, is bounded on three sides by Union territory and on the fourth by Southern Rhodesia. It seems to me that they are obviously inseparable parts of the same economic system. They cannot survive as separate, independent economic units. The Union to-day is the natural market for their cattle and agricultural produce, as well as for their labour. By incorporation in the Union, the inhabitants would enjoy all the benefits which accrue to comparatively undeveloped countries as a result of closer association with an advanced and progressive State. The financial and technical resources of the Union would be extended to them, as well as transport facilities to tap their resources and hasten their development.
Noble Lords who spoke earlier perhaps overlooked the fact that to develop these territories it would be necessary to spend immense sums on transport, roads, rail-
1052
ways and air services. Moreover, agricultural schools would be open to them in the Union, and also help in combating erosion, in the provision of water supplies, roads, bridges and all those things. If you ask a South African why they should want the High Commission Territories, which are at the moment a liability and not an asset, he may reply, as Lionel Curtis said when he was advocating their transfer some years ago: "Suppose that the Hudson Bay Territories in Canada, the North of Australia and the Maori Reserves in New Zealand were to-day protectorates, controlled and administered from Whitehall, would not those Governments regard it as an intolerable infringement of their natural sovereignty and a mark of distrust of their ability to administer them justly?"
It is not possible to discuss this subject without some reference to the stumbling block, which is the racial policy of the Union of South Africa. Its aims and objects are so imperfectly understood in this country and so frequently misrepresented that perhaps a brief reference may be justified. In any case, the only factor that will change native policy in the Union is public opinion in the Union itself. The South Africans feel that this is their problem. It is one of life and death importance to them. They cannot leave it to be settled on abstract principles by people sitting in impartial and Imperial security 6,000 miles away, who perhaps do not understand the atmosphere. They hold, rightly or wrongly, that the future relations of black and white must be worked out on the spot, just as Cecil Rhodes believed that South African problems could be solved only by eliminating the Imperial factor. The policy of apartheid, as practised by the Union Government, may not command acceptance here, and it certainly differs widely and fundamentally from our Colonial policy; but it is based on principles sincerely held there as to what is best for the African and for the European. It bears little resemblance to the popular misconception of it here. This is not the place or the time to discuss the native policy, or its aims, objects and goal generally in that part of Africa, but it is necessary just to refer to it.
Apart from the economic reasons to which I have referred, claims for the

1053
transfer of these territories are strongly based on history and geography, on military security and internal security, and on the general welfare of the inhabitants. Let us take the figures, which I know are apt to be misleading at times: in 1954–55 the Union Government were spending £3 7s. per head annually on Union native education, health and social services, while in the protectorates we were spending only 19s. per head on the same services. Migrant labour from the protectorates sends back annually from South Africa about £1 million sterling to their families. Wages are higher and taxes are lower in the Union.
The real bar then, to transfer, remains in the field of racial policy, the loss of human dignity by the denial of full equality in political rights. To some extent we are here sealing with a distorted sense of values. The bulk of the Bantu people are still largely unfitted for the exercise of such political rights. The absence of a sense of personal freedom is, of course, a very real obstacle. I am not attempting to minimise it; I am merely contending that time alone can alter it.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Why are they unfitted for the rights of citizenship?
LORD MILVERTON: Because they are not yet educated to a standard where they would appreciate it.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Excuse my saying "Rubbish!"
LORD MILVERTON: To compare the two policies, the policy of putting a growing measure of Bantu political and administrative power into the hands of the Bantu is in accordance with apartheid policy. The difference between that and our colonial policy, and one that we must try to understand, is that the development of local self-government with us is a preliminary to wider political rights; in the Union it is a substitute for them. Mr. Leo Marquand, a well-known writer on these subjects, has pointed out that a better understanding of the South African racial problem might occur if it were more generally realised that the Union is herself a great Colonial Power. She is at once a motherland and a colony at the same time. South Africans who administer Africa and who bring Western civilisation to Africa do not go home on periodic leave or retire to a distant
1054
country. South Africa is, by every known right, their own home. British Colonial policy, accepted by all Parties here, aims at training Africans for self-government as soon as practicable.
The demand for fully responsible government is increasingly clamant throughout Africa. But there is a vast difference between the position of the United Kingdom and that of the Union. Britain's colonial subjects demand self-government, not a share in the Government at Westminster. But South Africa's subjects demand a share in the Government at Cape Town. The consequence of failure for Britain would be, at worst, that she would lose her Colonies; and for the Africans concerned it would be either anarchy or, for a shorter or longer period, mis-government. But the consequences of such a policy for South Africa, if it failed to create a society with a common purpose, where political divisions were not also at the same time racial divisions, would be that the white South African would not merely forfeit a colony; he would lose a home and ruin a civilisation so hardly and so ably built. We here believe with Mr. Marquand that Western civilisation is not a matter of colour, and that it is not ultimately preserved by protecting it by hot-house methods. But our situation is, as I say, a different one. I am not saying that our views are not right, but I sometimes feel that a little less self-righteousness on our part, a little more care to understand the difficulties and to avoid misrepresenting the aims and the goal of South African policy, would considerably help those statesmen who are there responsible for solving one of the most intractable problems of our age. We think we know that tribalism cannot survive contact with Western civilisation and industrialisation, and that the policy of native reserves carries with it the seeds of inevitable decay. But for the time being it is, I suggest, a protection both to African and to European, and on a very short-term view it may be right.
My Lords, in conclusion, should we not remember that the High Commission Territories could not continue to exist without the benevolent help of the Union Government which has been freely given to them in the past? Their currency is South African; they Share a customs agreement with the Union; their trade and markets all go that way; and in time of drought and trouble they have turned

1055
to the Union Government and have not been denied assistance. I suggest that what is needed is more mutual trust and understanding between the Union and the United Kingdom. Expressions of friendship and co-operation are meaningless unless each side assumes the good will and bona fides of the other and genuinely seeks a compromise on opposing views. Such a foundation can hardly be established if South Africa is to be suspect and if her ability to administer and accord justice to a Bantu territory continues to be judged on the distorted picture so often presented to the United Nations and to the world. The maintenance of friendship with the Union is of vital importance to us, and it is surely not incompatible with the fulfilment of our trust for the welfare of the people of the High Commission Territories and the protection of their property rights. That is why I venture to plead for an active and not a passive policy in connection with the High Commission Territories, in the conviction that mutual trust and understanding might build a strong and lasting accord between Britain and South Africa and. incidentally, a happier future for the Bantu race.
6.58 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I think the noble Earl. Lord Lucan, is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to the notice of your Lordships—indeed, as he has said, the High Commission Territories have tended to be overlooked in our debates, and they are perhaps worthy of an even fuller debate than is possible to-night. In the course of his remarks the noble Earl used such expressions as "stagnation" and "back-water." Those terms may well have been justified in the past, but of recent years the necessity for progress and development in the High Commission Territories has been recognised and certain plans and programmes have been put on foot
My real object in rising is because of the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who, as I understood him, with great thoroughness and a wealth of argument was making the case for the transfer of these territories to the Government of the Union of South Africa. I cannot agree with him: in fact, I was distressed to hear what the noble Lord said. I con-
1056
fess at once that my objection to the transfer of the territories is due to the racial policies being pursued by the Government of South Africa. Were it not for that, were the racial policies of the Union of South Africa as we should desire to see them and as, with our responsibilities in other parts of Africa, we must desire to see them, I should be the first to agree that the three High Commission Territories and South-West Africa, with the Union of South Africa, would form a very natural and desirable South African Dominion. It is because of those racial policies that I do not feel able to agree to anything of the kind.
We have responsibilities to the African people in these territories and to Africans in other African territories. I am sure that all those African people would regard it as a grave breach of trust and a negation of the many declarations concerning racial policy that we have made if, things being as they are, we were to agree to the transfer of the territories. In London only last week, before a conference of jurists, a South African Q.C. said that the jury system was inapplicable in South Africa because juries could not be trusted to act without bias against Africans. I, myself, while in South Africa recently, was shocked and horrified at several cases in which European juries pronounced sentences which were a travesty of justice and were due simply to European prejudice against the African. While those things are so I cannot believe that any Government in this country, of whatever political shade it might be, could hope to obtain from Parliament consent to the transfer of the High Commission Territories to the Government of South Africa. But that is a long argument to enter upon and we are very late to-night. I have only one other brief remark to make after uttering that protest against the remarks of the noble lord, Lord Milverton—
LORD MILVERTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I think he has rather misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not arguing for an immediate transfer of the territories as things are at present; I was suggesting that it is difficult to see what future they can have except in partnership with the Union; therefore it would be advisable for this Government to enter into friendly talks with Union officials to try to discover a

1057
basis on which the territories could be handed over with satisfaction to both sides.
LORD WINSTER: The noble Earl who is to reply may have something to say on the question of entering into discussions with the South African Government. I imagine that there would be no great reluctance but I do not believe that much result could conic from such discussions so long as the racial policies of the South African Government are what they are at present. I believe that those policies are a bar to such talks as the noble Lord proposes.
The short question I venture to put to the noble Earl is this: in any consideration of the future of the High Commission Territories, and of the proposals and wishes of the Union Government for the transfer of those Territories, are the strategic implications of such a transfer being studied? When I was in South Africa I became aware of influences at work about which we have heard something tonight, influences which might conceivably make the strategic position of those territories of great importance. Not only economic questions and questions of racial policy are involved here. My main object in rising was to ask the noble Earl whether the House may be assured that those considerations, of which I am sure he is fully aware, are not being overlooked in considering the problems of the High Commission Territories.
7.5 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, at this late hour, for your Lordships' House, I will not delay you long. I have been interested in this subject for a number of years. It is one which appears annually in the Report to the Church of Scotland of its Church and Nation Committee. Having been a member of that Committee for some years, I know the earnestness with which that body seeks to be impartial, objective and fair in looking at this subject. There is a reiterated call upon those who have the decision on these matters that the people of these territories shall not be brought under the rule of the Union Government without full consultation and without their consent. Quite clearly, the policy of the Union Government with regard to its coloured populations is at the bottom of this attitude.
1058
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that there would be advantages to the people of the High Commission Territories if they were to be incorporated in the Union. At present they have to leave the individual territories to work in the Union so as to maintain their families. It is perfectly true that many economic advantages could be held out to them for allowing themselves to be incorporated in the Union. But some things are of even greater value than economic considerations. While it is true, as the noble Lord says, that benefits could be obtained by the absorption of the territories into the Union, there are also disabilities which they would suffer were they brought under the rule of the Union Government, especially in the light of its present attitude.
Many educated Africans are doing good work in their own countries. I am thinking of a doctor with whom I have come in contact, a great specialist in child disease, who covers a wide field in his own territory as a highly qualified doctor with many degrees. That man, of real education and great culture, would through the policy now being pursued by the Union Government be looked upon as of less consequence and with less entitlement to the dignity of his human personality than someone who was sent out from this country in disgrace because he would not behave himself at home and who is living there on an. allowance. Under the system which prevails there at the present time, the latter, because lie has a white skin, will be looked upon as of more consequence than that highly qualified doctor.
This is a very difficult and complicated subject, and it is unwise, I believe, to be too sweeping in one's assertions with regard to it. I had the opportunity a month or two ago now of listening to a speech by the present High Commissioner for South Africa. It was a speech made in public, so there is no reason why I should not refer to it. As a matter of fact, it was published in the Journal of the Royal Empire Society, for it was in the Society's hall that the speech was matte. The High Commissioner showed how much the Union Government were doing for their Bantu population. I cannot remember all the details, but I remember particularly these actual figures.

1059
He said that of £30 million that the Union had provided for raising the standards of the Bantu population, £8 million was for education. Well, the kind of question I feel like putting to the noble Earl who is going to reply on behalf of the Government to this debate is: How do we stand so far as the High Commission Territorities are concerned with respect to providing in that way for the populations who come directly within our jurisdiction and who are subject to our rule?
I am afraid that up till very recently we have not paid a great deal of attention to the economic needs of those territories. I believe that in Swaziland and Bechuanaland there is the possibility of considerable industrial development. I do not think the same considerations apply to Basutoland, which, perhaps, is less blessed with exploitable economic resources. And there is the question of what are we doing to help maintain these peoples within our own Empire, within British jurisdiction, apart from the Union, so that they will not readily become, because of economic pressure upon them, willing to secede and leave our own Commonwealth in order to come within the jurisdiction of the Union Government. There is something valuable, surely, in our being able to maintain the loyalty and affection—if I may put it that way—of the peoples in those territories, and it seems to me that it would be a sorry day if we caused these peoples, by reason of economic circumstances which we could relieve, to take the choice of leaving the Commonwealth to which we belong and which we should seek to make attractive to those who are within its bounds.
7.14 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, your Lordships will welcome this opportunity of a discussion of the problems of the High Commission Territories, and I am grateful to the noble Earl who asked his Question. One question he asked me was whether Her Majesty's Government accept responsibility for the well-being and progress of the peoples in these territories. I can answer at once that we do. The population of these territories is, of course, predominantly African, and this afternoon I shall be concentrating on the African aspects. But I think we should
1060
do well to remind ourselves at the start that there are 4,000 Europeans in Swaziland and 2,000 in Bechuanaland who are making an essential and constructive contribution to the social and economic life of these Territories.
If it is suitable to your Lordsips, I will cover this subject as shortly as I can, under three headings—administration, social services and economic expansion. Native administration in all three territories has been built on the chieftainship. That is the system to which the people are accustomed and to which they are loyal. Therefore, I would suggest it is right that any new institutions which are built up should be built upon that foundation. If this is accepted, I think the next step is to broaden the basis of government by seeking to achieve a devolution of responsibility and the development of more representative institutions. Although the basis of the native administration, as I have said, has been the chieftainship, one cannot even in these three territories generalise, because they have different characteristics. Therefore I will take each of the territories in turn.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has said, Basutoland has had the advantage of the recommendations of what is known as the Moore Committee. The Moore Committee made three recommendations: that there should be popularly elected district councils, with a fair degree of responsibility for local affairs; that the Basutoland National Council should have an elected majority, and that it should be able to make by-laws. The word "bylaw" is, I think, a little misleading as understood in this country; I have had a look at the list of the by-laws which the Committee proposed the Basutoland National Council could make, and they cover some very important aspects of Basuto affairs. The third proposal was one designed to strengthen the chieftainship. The Moore Report has, I think, been misunderstood; it was never really discussed on its merits, and, so far as I have been able to discover, the chief cause of misunderstanding was that the Basuto people interpreted it as an attack upon the chieftainship. That is really not so, because the Report expressly recognised that the chieftainship is an essential part of the political structure of Basutoland. Also it made proposals to improve cooperation between the Paramount Chief and the Resident Commissioner.

1061
I am glad to say that there are now indications that the Basuto people are willing to give further consideration to the Report; they have been asked to consider it at the district council level and to indicate which parts of the Report they favour and which parts they would like to see amended. There are a number of recommendations in the Moore Report which are, as a matter of fact, very close to proposals which the Basuto themselves have made over the past few years. Therefore I hope that when the National Council assembles in September we shall get some constructive suggestions from them. I can say here and now that the High Commissioner's recommendations and the final decision which is taken will take full account of the Basuto views. So it seems to me that we have the probability of progress in and advantage to Basutoland.
I turn for a moment to Bechuanaland, where steps are being taken to develop a more representative system of government. With the agreement of the chiefs and the people, a start has been made in encouraging the establishment of councils to assist the chiefs and the subordinate native authorities. It is proposed that these councils should be one-third nominated by the chiefs and subordinate native authorities and two-thirds popularly elected. As these councils gain in experience, it is contemplated that all major aspects of local government and tribal administration will come within their scope and that they should have their own funds to control and spend. Already there is an African Advisory Council and it is hoped that very soon a large percentage of that council will be elected by the tribal councils. Then there will be a pyramid of elected representatives and a body at the summit able to speak for all Africans. So again in Bechuanaland we have a system which is developing to the advantage of the natives of the territory.
Swaziland is rather different. The traditional system of government, as your Lordships know, is that of a Paramount Chief acting with a Council which is fully representative of the people. That system has worked well and I think it would be a mistake to try and force the people of Swaziland into a mould for which they are not fitted. With the full co-operation of the Paramount Chief and
1062
his advisers, committees are being set up to deal with local problems. Here again are the germs of the devolution of authority.
On the subject of constitutions perhaps I may say something rather more general. I think we all have a tendency when constitution-making to think in terms which are familiar and in terms of a fixed pattern. The British Constitution is not a sort of ready-made suit which we can put on any social body with the hope that it will fit. The same thing applies to the legislative council; because a legislative council is appropriate for one set of social conditions, we are apt to argue that it is necessarily right for all. Legislative councils would require an official majority and an elected European element, and in some ways they would be less representative than the kind of representative institutions we are seeking to build up in the territories. I think that these proposals are probably the most appropriate and most hopeful line of administrative progress, which we can pursue, at any rate for the present.
I turn from the constitutional side to the social services. Here, if it is agreeable to your Lordships. I should like to make a proposal —that is, that I should publish a White Paper containing the details of the social services and economic development in the three territories, for it is quite impossible to cover them adequately this evening. However, I want to extract the main features of two social services which perhaps will interest your Lordships—namely, health and education. In all three territories expenditure from revenue on health has increased, as has expenditure by grant from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds. In Basutoland new hospitals, new health centres and mountain dispensaries in outlying districts, are being built. In Bechuanaland, hospital facilities have been improved. There is now one doctor to every 17,000 persons and one bed to every 555 persons. The World Health Organisation is active in Bechuanaland in trying to counter prevalent diseases. In Swaziland, hospitals have been enlarged and a public health laboratory has been built.
By reason of the skilful campaigns which have been pursued and with the aid of modern drugs, malaria has been nearly eradicated and the elimination of

1063
leprosy is within sight. Under all these headings there are plans for development with which we are ready to press on. In regard to bilharzia, which is becoming more prevalent and dangerous, it is planned to create a team to try to bring this under control and eradicate it. I have no wish to convey in the least that the path has been completely cleared by the progress that has been made. There is much to be done. Tuberculosis, for instance, is a scourge. There are no specialist facilities in the territories, and there is much to be done in the field of nutrition and hygiene. Nevertheless, I think we can claim that in the last ten years there has been very real progress in the field of public health services.
If I may, I will also briefly sketch the development of education. In all three territories, school buildings have been improved; the percentage of qualified teachers has increased and the size of classes has been reduced—it sounds almost like a debate on education in this country. But in the territories it is a very large problem, and we are certainly not satisfied. In Swaziland the number of schools offering higher primary education has been increased from ten to twenty-nine in the last few years. A trade school has been built. In Basutoland the Administration plan to build in the next five years an agricultural training school, six new secondary schools and two new teacher-training institutions. In Bechuanaland new junior secondary schools, a new teacher-training college and a trade school are being built, as well as extensions to the Bamangwato College, which is designed to serve the whole Protectorate.
At present as the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has said, the territories cannot afford to pay the cost of these services out of their own revenues, and a great deal therefore falls on the United Kingdom. I think it would be short-sighted to follow a policy of indefinitey subsidising the social services whereby they are fixed at a level at which the territories could never hope to keep them out of their own resources. While some direct assistance is certainly necessary, the bulk of the money which comes from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund is being spent on economic development for increasing the wealth of the territories, because, as in
1064
every other country in the world, unless their wealth is increased, their welfare cannot be increased.
I turn from the social services to the economic development of the territories. There is the possibility that diamonds may be found in Basutoland. A private prospector is prospecting at the moment, but I have not heard the result. The Orange River power station is a practical proposition, we are advised, but of course the market for its power is in the Union, and the Union have to consider whether or not they wish to take it. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, asked about agriculture in Basutoland. The development of Basutoland is largely a question of soil conservation, first of all; secondly of the productivity of the soil and then of making successful marketing arrangements. Therefore a large part of the Colonial Development Fund is being spent on remedying the damage to the soil which has arisen from a mixture of over-population and bad farming in the past. The result—the noble Lord will see more details in the White Paper—is that the whole territory of Basutoland can be protected against soil erosion within the next few years.
The next problem is the improvement of agricultural methods, so that the Basuto can grow enough for themselves and possibly a surplus for export. The White Paper will give details but I may mention that an experimental agricultural station has been established, and a complete catchment area has been taken over and is being developed to demonstrate the problems of land conservation and more effective production—that is to say, better farming. The programme includes the introduction of tractors operated on a co-operative basis and there is more marketing of wool, also on a co-operative basis. So in Basutoland, so far as the development of the soil is concerned—and that, as I say, must be the foundation of the economy of the territory—I think the White Paper will show a tale which your Lordships will feel is at any rate a move very much in the right direction.
In the past, the economy of Bechuanaland has been based largely on cattle. The problem is really one of water. Therefore, the money from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund here is

1065
being spent to bring more water, particularly to the sparsely populated areas where it is estimated that there are 10.000 square miles which could produce 150.000 head of cattle. Much thought is being put into the siting of dams and of boreholes in order to bring water to this Territory. In the preparation of a water plan (if I may so call it) the chiefs and the elders in Bechuanaland are, I am glad to say, co-operating to the full. That aims at an inevitably long-term expansion of agricultural production. The best hope for more immediate prosperity lies undoubtedly in the discovery of easily worked minerals. A geological survey has been made which has revealed the presence of a variety of minerals. Copper, coal, asbestos and kyanite have all been found, and they have attracted commercial interests. There is one proposal for a reconnaissance survey which will take three years and on which something like £50,000 will be spent—the details will appear in the White Paper. The proposal is under consideration by the chiefs of tribes, since the ownership of the minerals lies in the tribe. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, who asked what protection a tribe has against an unscrupulous exploiter. The answer is that they cannot make any move without the assent of our High Commissioner; and his advice, and that of the resident Commissioner, will always be at the disposal of the tribal chief. There is, therefore, some protection there.
Lastly, I turn from Bechuanaland to Swaziland. The economy of Swaziland is already largely based on minerals, mainly asbestos. A geological survey has again disclosed that there are other minerals there which it is possible to exploit, and there are possibilities, too, of hydro-electric power. But perhaps your Lordships will be interested more than anything else in this fact: since Swaziland has the benefit of a good climate, good soil and plenty of water, forestry on a large scale is an economic proposition. Fairly recently. 160,000 acres have been planted with pines, and if prices and costs maintain roughly their present proportions, then from timber the Government will get as much revenue in a few years' time as they get from all sources put together now. So timber is going to be a considerable asset to the territory. Irrigated farming is
1066
another new development. An area of 30,000 acres is already producing bananas, rice, citrus fruit and vegetables and the extent of the development is perhaps illustrated by the fact that in four years the revenue of the territory has been doubled.
All this rather intensive economic development in Swaziland obviously raises acutely the question of communications between these different areas of development, and they can be tackled successfully only by the building of roads or railways, or both, financed by loan or grant. I am glad to say that the revenue of the territory is so buoyant that it can service such loans as may be necessary for these developments. Your Lordships may he interested in the attempts being made to ensure sufficient land for the natives' needs—and again, I will give details of this in the White Paper. About 345,000 acres have been bought with Colonial Development and Welfare Funds and developed into model settlements and the Paramount Chief, who is co-operating fully, has set up a Central Rural Development Board which is making rules for the use of land.
I had no thought, and certainly no wish, that this debate would take a turn in which the domestic policies of South Africa and the question of the possible transfer of the territories to the Union should be debated, and I do not wish to spend much time on that particular aspect of the question. But since my noble friend Lord Milverton has mentioned it, 1 will just refer him to the statement made by my predecessor on April 13, 1954, and, in particular, to these words:
"I think it is right to state that, in the conditions which exist at the present time, the Government would not be prepared to recommend such a transfer to Parliament."
But short of this question of the transfer of the territories to the Union Government, of course we want the fullest cooperation with the Union Government; and, indeed, I think I can safely say that it already exists over a wide range of practical matters, such as trade, transport, agriculture, health and development generally. It is the firm wish of Her Majesty's Government that these contacts should be maintained and developed, and I shall do all I can to promote good feeling and understanding in these matters of administration.

1067
So, over all, in answer to the Question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan—for which, I repeat, I am most grateful—I think I can say this: the administrative system in the territories is being developed on more representative lines; social services are being expanded, so far as the money will allow; and the economic resources of the various territories are being rapidly developed to the great advantage of the native inhabitants. Economic development is the crux, and we intend to push on with it as fast as we possibly can. Though conditions may vary in the territories, it is our firm intention to see to it that the general wellbeing of the people of these territories is promoted in every way in which Her Majesty's Government can assist.
7.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may be allowed to thank the Secretary of State for his important statement, which I think will give a good deal of satisfaction, both here and in the three territories, and will certainly remove a great many misconceptions. I am sure he will appreciate that we should not wish to express a final judgment about this statement until we have had an opportunity of reading it in Hansard and also of studying the White Paper which the noble Earl has promised to publish. I should like to make only two brief comments. It is evident from what the noble Earl has said that the basic principle of British policy towards our dependencies—the principle of mutual expansion of self-government by representative persons, both locally and at the centre—is, in fact, being carried out in these territories and will continue to be carried out in time to come. I cannot help feeling that a great deal of the controversy on this subject is verbal and is due to the fact that people do not see the realities behind words. In this regard, I was particularly glad to hear the Secretary of State say that the Basuto are having second thoughts about the Moore Committee's Report. I am quite sure that many of its recommendations will take them a long step forward, and I am glad that the Government are
1068
not trying to impose any of its proposals but are rather waiting for the good will and approval of the Basuto.
The other matter which I think will give satisfaction is the obvious evidence of improved social services and new economic development in recent years. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his promise of a White Paper which will set out these improvements in full detail. As my noble friend Lord Lucan said, the affairs of these territories are seldom discussed in Parliament, and it would be an appropriate conclusion—and I believe I speak for everyone—to pay a warm tribute this evening to the executive and administrative technical officers of these territories, whose devotion to duty has made this remarkable measure of progress possible, and also to express our cordial good will towards the peoples of the territories, who, although they are very far away, are not forgotten, and to their traditional and represenative leaders.

WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Bill (in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee) presented, and read 1a.
HILLINGDON ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Bill (in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee) presented, and read 1a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Committed: Bill reported without amendment.
CROSBY CORPORATION BILL
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SWANSEA CORPORATION (FAIRRWOOD COMMON) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
SANDOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
DEWSBURY MOOR CREMATORIUM BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock.