ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

HL Deb 07 November 1956 vol 200 cc29-61

2.46 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Birdwood—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth: Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, in resuming the debate on the humble Address, we pass from the harmonious proceedings of yesterday to the possibly less harmonious proceedings which confront us for the rest of the Session. The proceedings of this House have been dominated for some time past by the international situation, and we have therefore thought it right, as the Chief Whip has announced to the House to ask the House to discuss that subject tomorrow on a special Motion. Unfortunately, events happen so rapidly that the Amendment which we prepared yesterday has already become out of date. We had hoped that the noble Marquess would be in a position to make a statement on the international situation this afternoon, but presumably he has nothing more that he can tell us.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURRY)

My Lords, perhaps I can answer that immediately. The position is that the Prime Minister hopes to be able to make some form of statement later in the afternoon in another place. If he does I shall, of course, make the same statement here.

LORD SILKIN

I hope the House will appreciate the difficulty in which we find ourselves o this side of the House in putting down an Amendment which would be worthy of serious consideration by the Home. For instance, although we have been informed that there is actually a cease fire in the Press this morning we are told that that has not been accepted by the Egyptians, And we are quite unaware what is the actual position at the moment. Of course, I do not blame Her Majesty's Government for that—the position is obscure and uncertain. But I think the House will understand if we await this statement before we actually put down an Amendment.

I said that we were proposing to discuss the international situation to-morrow, but we have it ought it right to refer to one particular aspect of the earlier proceedings, and that is the doctrine of self-defence enunciated by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on the occasion when we last discussed the matter. This doctrine—I hope he will not mind my saying so—was so startling to many of us that we thought it right to put the point of view of noble Lords on this side of the House at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt has been good enough to undertake to speak to the House this afternoon on that particular aspect. We hope also that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will be in a position to speak to-morrow and he has already indicated views in The Times.

Coming to the gracious Speech, we welcome on this side of the House, as I ant sure all noble Lords, the references to the Commonwealth, and particularly t the advance in Parliamentary democracy and prosperity which is visualised Reference has been made in the gracious Speech to the Gold Coast, the British Caribbean Federation and British Guiana. As a policy which we on this side of the House feel particularly responsible for initiating, we are very glad indeed that this policy is being pursued in those parts of the world. Of course, the difficulty is always one of timing. The right thing done at the right time will always be successful; the right thing done too late may very often do a great deal of harm. I feel that in these particular cases we are probably doing the right thing at the right time and I have for myself no criticism to make. But there are examples of not doing the right thing at the right time, and Cyprus is one of them. Some of my noble friends will have something to say on Cyprus and also on Malaya and Singapore. If only we could have caught the psychological moment at which to make these Parliamentary advances and established democracy, we might very well have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble.

I said earlier that the international situation had dominated our proceedings in the last few weeks, but we must not underrate the far-reaching effect of many of the domestic proposals which are referred to in the gracious Speech. If I refer first of all to one particular proposal it is not necessarily because it is the most important although it is important, but because I am sure it will be one which will be of great interest to your Lordships—that is, the reference to the reform of the composition of this House. I want to say at once that, in my opinion, any major constitutional change that is proposed ought to be the subject of the fullest possible discussion in the country and the greatest measure of approval. Our Constitution is a very ancient one and we ought not lightly to make major changes in it.

I am not for a moment suggesting that these changes may not be necessary or desirable, but any major change must not be one which is just put forward in the form of a Bill and passed in the course of a single Session of Parliament. The country ought to have the fullest opportunity of considering it. The noble Marquess will, I am sure, agree with me that in this case, though not necessarily in all cases, the doctrine of a mandate does not really apply. Both Parties, in putting forward a particular proposal have often sheltered themselves by the statement that the matter had been included in their Election manifesto—which probably few people will have noticed, and still fewer read. But in a matter of this kind it is sufficient to say that this question has been included in their Election manifesto. Of course it has been; and I am very well aware that noble Lords opposite have indicated their intention of doing something about the House of Lords. If I may say so, however, nobody has stated that very seriously, and even if he did, he had no idea about what was to be done. So I am somewhat comforted by the fact that the gracious Speech does not refer to "the introduction of legislation" but to the making of "proposals." They may well take the form of a White Paper which it would be possible to discuss. I should hope that that will be the course that will be taken.

Now I should like to say a word about the merits of the subject itself. I hope I am not too greatly daring in venturing on what will probably be one of the most controversial subjects with which we shall be faced in the near future; nor am I, at this stage, committing myself to the desirability or otherwise of making any changes. What I do say is that one has to be quite sure that any different composition of this House will work better than the present one does. The present composition is quite anomalous and illogical, and impossible to justify on any rational ground. I defy even the most irrational noble Lord to stand up and justify the present composition. Nevertheless, however easy it may be to criticise the present composition, one has to find something that will work better.

We have to consider what are the difficulties about the House as at present constituted. The first is that there is a permanent Conservative majority. That is quite indefensible. It is a majority which works very well indeed when there is a Conservative Government, but it does not work so happily when there is a Labour or Liberal Government. I am not suggesting that the noble Marquess and his friends have not done their best to make it work, but always overshadowing any proposal of a Labour Government is the possibility of either a hostile action of this House which will completely defeat a measure or the introduction of hostile Amendments which will cripple it. So any kind of amendment of the composition of this House must take account of the fact that if the new composition is going to work, there must not be a permanent Conservative majority or a permanent majority of any other kind.

Then there is the question of powers. As noble Lords know, there is very great jealousy on the part of the House of Commons about granting this House any further powers than it already has. Although the revision of the composition of this House is not necessarily related to powers, it would be very difficult to constitute a new House without considering the question of powers. One of the difficulties, for instance, is that if the House consists of eminent persons who are expected to devote their time to the work of this House, they will naturally expect to have substantial powers; and they may not be satisfied with the powers that we in this House have at present. I do not want to enlarge on this aspect at this stage, and certainly anything I say at the moment is purely tentative and without any knowledge of what Her Majesty's Government have in mind.

We are all aware, of course, of one of the reasons, at any rate why the question of the reform of the composition of this House has come about at all. It is that, owing to economic and other circumstances, noble Lords, particularly on my side of the House, are finding it increasingly difficult to attend and, even more, to devote themselves to the work of the House. I need hardly say that attendance is one thing; devoting oneself to the work of the House, is guile another. One can get a House of silent Members or of inattentive Members, but if one is to conic here and take an intelligent and worthwhile interest in the proceedings of this House, it involves the sacrifice of a great deal of time—not only by mere physical attendance here but probably much more outside. There arc a considerable number of noble Lords who would be willing and are capable of making that effort if only the financial situation were adjusted.

My Lords, the problem goes further than that. From time to time new Peers are created. We need fresh blood in this House, and we are much indebted to the fresh blood that we receive from time to time. But a great many persons are deterred from coming here because of the fact, among other reasons, that they cannot afford to do so. There are eminent Members of another place who would make first-class Members of this House, but they are in receipt of a remuneration, whereas we in this House are not. It is asking a great deal of persons who are, to a certain extent, dependent upon their remuneration in another place to come here.

I said a moment ago that noble Lords here arc not paid. Of course, that is not true of the whole of the House; a substantial number of the Members of this House are paid. There are the Bishops, for instance. They are not paid as Members of this douse, but they are in receipt of a stipenc which I am sure they will regard as wholly inadequate, but which at any rate enables them to come here from time to time. There are the Lords of Appeal; and there are, of course, Her Majesty's k Misters. But for those persons who are not in receipt of such remuneration, I submit that it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a good House, anti, in particular, to maintain an effective Opposition. All that I have said to-day cannot be news to the noble Marquess who leads the House; it has all been said be fore, though I doubt whether it has been; aid in this House. I thought it right to sty it, however, in view of the proposal that we should consider the reform of the composition of the House. I would emphasise, before leaving this subject, that a mere reform of the composition of the House will not, in itself, be adequate; and I would therefore ask the noble Marquess to agree that the two matters should be considered quite independently. Reform of the composition is one thing but the steps to be taken to enable noble Lords to act effectively in this House is quite a separate matter and the two should not be in any way interlocked.

Now I want to conic, perhaps by way of anti-climax, to another point in the gracious Speech, and one in which I have taken a considerable interest since I was a Minister—that is the question of subsidence. It is proposed in the gracious Speech to provide e remedy for damage caused by subsidence resulting front coal mining. The House will he aware that a large part of this country is affected by subsidence. All I want to say at the moment is that we shall welcome this measure, but why confine it to subsidence from coal mining, when a great deal of damage is caused by subsidence from salt mining and other forms of miring? Noble Lords who know Cheshire will know that a large part of that area is affected by subsidence from salt mining, and I should hope that when the time conies for dealing with this matter any proposed measure will be much wider than one dealing with coal mining alone.

There is a reference in the gracious Speech to local government finance, which is, of course, a most important matter. But why is there no reference to local government reform? Everybody agrees that to-day the existing form of local government, the existing boundaries and the existing type of local authority are very much out of date and in need of review. I know that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has given a great deal of consideration to this question, but why is there no suggestion that local government will in fact be reformed? The implication is that the Government will deal with finance but will leave the structure of local government exactly as it is.

There is one minor matter. After the debate we had some months ago on the question of betting, when the House was of the opinion that some action should be taken as the result of the Report of the Royal Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, went so far as to tell us what he thought should be done. It is most disappointing to find that, in fact, nothing has been done at all. We have therefore really wasted our time in having a debate and in listening to the noble Lord's remarks on what he was going to do.

I see that one measure which we are going to have very soon is that dealing with an amendment of the law of homicide. I understand that this Bill is actually ready. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount can tell us whether that Bill relating to the law of homicide is actually ready, but I see from the Press that we are likely to have the Bill in the course of a day or so. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can tell us later on.

I am surprised at the speed with which the Government have acted in this matter. Clearly, they can act with speed when they want to; but it seems to me to be misdirected speed when it is directed to the question of homicide at a time when there are so many other more important matters that might well have been dealt with at this early stage of the Session. I cannot help thinking that possibly the reason for the speed was, if I may put it vulgarly, to "dish" Mr. Silverman—to get in first. With respect, I do not think that that is a very creditable thing to do. After all the Government had agreed to leave this matter to a free vote; and to come in in advance of the opportunity for Private Members to bring in a Bill seems to me to have the effect of "queering their pitch". Moreover, while not knowing what the Bill is intended to do, it would appear that the purpose of the Bill would be to define different degrees of homicide, a thing which the Government had all along said could not be done. It was said not only by the Government; the Royal Commission expressed difficulty in differentiating punishment for one type of murderer as against another. Now, at the earliest possible moment in this Session, the Government are trying to do what they regarded as the impossible.

I imagine that one of the most controversial measures that we shall have to deal with in this Session is that relating to rent control. I can promise noble Lords that that really will be regarded as a very controversial measure. It will affect a great many tenants. If I have understood it correctly, the matter will be dealt with by degrees, in that people who are at present in the category of paying the highest controlled rents will come first. They will be the very persons of whom Her Majesty's Government have constituted themselves the champions—the lower-paid middle classes, people whose rentals are in the neighbourhood of £150 a year. They are the people who are going to be hit first. I would not for a moment suggest that the Rent Acts are all that they should be or as fair as they might be, or that they are not in need of some amendment. But the purpose of this legislation is not merely to clarify the law; it is to change the law, and to take a number of dwellings out of control.

Nor would I suggest that rent control should remain for all time—I do not think that anyone has suggested that. But this is not the time, nor the place, for there is still a shortage of that type of accommodation which it is proposed to decontrol. I invite any noble Lords who have the misfortune to need one to try to rind a flat or a small house at a rental of £150 a year. They may get it on payment of a premium of £5,000 or £6,000 or by acquiring a lot of fixtures and fittings which they do not want, but it is quite impossible to go into the market at the present time and get a flat at anything like that rent. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, who has great knowledge of this subject, will agree with me, yet it is proposed to decontrol that kind of property and to place people at the mercy of landlords, to take away their security and to give landlords a completely free hand to increase rents to any figure that they think is desirable or possible.

I would invite noble Lords to consider what are likely to be the economic effects at this stage, apart from the hardship caused to tenants. Undoubtedly it will result in increases in the cost of living and there will be quite legitimate demands for increases in wages, so that we shall once more be making a contribution towards the inflationary process. I hope that even at this late hour Her Majesty's Government will hesitate before involving the country in this grave conflict on domestic affairs—for I prophesy that it will be one of the gravest conflicts that we shall have in the present Parliament—and before they cause this distress and economic difficulty.

I do not want to deal with any other measures at this stage. Anyone reading the gracious Speech will see that this promises to be a very heavy Session and there will be the greatest need for scrutiny of legislation and other measures which will be brought forward. Therefore it will be of the utmost importance to have a live and vigilant Opposition. We will do our best within our very limited and restricted means. But, coming back to what I said at the beginning, I regard the straightening out of the position of Members of this House as a matter of the greatest possible urgency and importance, and I hope that before Her Majesty's Government think at all about reforming the composition they will have regard to this particular aspect. That is all I wish to say this afternoon but I am afraid that the House Neill be hearing something from me tomorrow on the international situation.

3.16 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think it improper if, before proceeding, I revert to some remarks made yesterday in the early part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood—I refer to his remarks about the Royal Family. The noble Lord put his tribute to Her Majesty the Queen and Her Family in most felicitous phrases and I should like once more to say how sure I am that all noble Lords endorse what he said of their unselfish life, and of the deep affection in which we regard them—an affection which, with the greatest respect, is, I believe, an almost personal affection such as has never before beer shown in the history of our country.

The arrangements for to-day and to-morrow, as your Lordships know, are that, in principle, we should try to confine ourselves to-day to internal affairs, proceeding to external affairs to-morrow. In view of what has happened over the last week in two that is, I am sure, a very big demand upon the patience and restraint of many of your Lordships. It is difficult to concentrate on internal affairs of Sate when minds are at present so much occupied with external affairs. Personally, I would have wished that we could have had this debate next week, rather that this week; but as that is impossible we must make the best of the position.

As one cannot at present totally ignore the impingement of external affairs on this House and another place, even if we are talking to-day on home affairs, I would just say that we in this quarter of the House support Her Majesty's Government it any development of the present situation which may lead most quickly to some peaceful solution. In those words I include the tragic position of Hungary, and I very much welcome the words which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, this afternoon. Like noble Lords on the Left, we are frankly critical of the Prime Minister and of Her Majesty's Government for events which ha e recently occurred, but I should like to make it clear that we do not accuse the Prime Minister of bad faith towards the people of this country. We believe that he acted in good faith, but mistakenly; and because mistakenly, wrongly. But to say or suggest, as has been suggested in some parts of the Press and elsewhere, that we who criticise him regard him as a warmonger is perfectly untrue and perfectly unfair.

I should also like to take this opportunity of deprecating that kind of argument which I am glad to say does not, for the most part, occur in responsible quarters, though sometimes it seeps almost to the doorstep of your Lordships' House—I mean the argument in which people refer to those who do not agree with them as being always ready to believe that their country is in the wrong. That seems a most unfair accusation. For example, in connection with the Bill "to amend the law of homicide" which is to cone before your Lordships' House this Session, to accuse those who would like to see the abolition of capital punishment (I am taking no sides at the moment) of being more concerned with the murderer than with his victim and the victim's relatives seems to me unprincipled and a charge that cannot be substantiated. I hope that kind of accusation may be dropped in future.

We on this side of the House and I hope that here I may speak for my noble friends on the left, consider that this country of ours is the best country in the world and though we have an imperfect system it is the one system in the world under which we would choose to live. We yield to no one in our feeling on those two points. I hope that I am not being offensive in suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that other nations also will subscribe to one's own views about oneself or one's Commonwealth. Although we may have a good opinion of ourselves (and I feel that we are justified in that) it is not reasonable to expect—as sonic politicians seem to expect—all other nations to take the same view of us. Those who take that point of view are motivated by high principles. I was most interested to read two significant sentences in a speech yesterday by Mr. Macmillan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said: We do live of course, at a rather difficult time but we have done that before. At the moment we seem rather isolated, but we have been that before"— two unexceptionable sentiments, I am sure.

He goes on to say this: Nothing matters so long as we think what we have done is right and that what we do will lead to something better coming out of it. On first reading, that sounds very fine and laudable. But is it really enough to say that so long as what we think we do is right it must be right? I am afraid I cannot go quite so far as that. I feel that we must consider the opinions of others who may conceivably think that what we think is right is not right. It is, of course, difficult to know what the majority opinion is and after all, that is what expresses, on the whole, what should be done in a country. I had hoped for, but did not expect, a reference in the gracious Speech to some improvement in our British electoral system which, as your Lordships may remember, revealed, even at the last General Election, that more people voted against the Conservative Party than voted for them. Accordingly in our whimsical and quixotic British way we immediately put a Conservative Government into power. I would also remind your Lordships that both Conservative and Socialist Governments are put into office and kept in office largely by the votes of those who prefer the devil they distrust to the devil they distrust even more.

If I may refer to a domestic affair and if I may call the Tory Assembly a domestic affair, I was a little shocked that when two very difficult controversial questions came up at that Conference, one of which was Egypt, which I will not go into now, and the other capital punishment, the case on the side of those questions which was not popular with the Conservative Party was not allowed to be heard. The would-be advocate was, I believe, shouted down and the Conservative Assembly would not even hear what was to be said against their view on those two matters. That shocked me very deeply. I was equally disturbed—if I may now attack my noble friends on the Left—that at the Labour Assembly a very eminent Socialist statesman, referring to municipal affairs, said of those who took part in them—and, remember, he was referring to the men and women who give their time to looking after their fellows, to dealing with the welfare of the State—that he was afraid that some of "our people" thought of themselves as councillors before they thought of themselves as Socialists. It seems to me that anyone, a councillor or a justice of the peace or a judge or anyone else giving service to the country in any way, should put that service far above being a Socialist: or a Communist or a Conservative or a Liberal. It may be a little unfair to take these quotations out of their context, but I hope that I have not been giving a false impression. There is always great danger in taking things Out of context.

If I may continue in a somewhat lighter vein for a moment, I should like to anticipate noble Lords opposite in quoting a little announcement which appeared in a newspaper this morning. It came under the heading "Ecclesiastical News" which, of course, deals with Church affairs entirely—it has nothing to do with politics. This announcement reads: The Archbishop … has become a vice-president of the Association for Promoting Retreats. I think, in fairness to the Archbishop, I should explain that the "retreats" are not the sort of retreats which your Lordships may have in mind, nor is the Archbishop referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, commented briefly on the question of House of Lords reform. This is of course, a matter which touches us very nearly. He spoke of the possible addition of power that may be involved. But it is set out in the gracious Speech that it is not the powers but only the composition of your Lordships' House which is going to be under consideration. I think that that should set at rest many of the fears which may, perhaps, have been entertained in regard to this subject by people who have been wondering what those powers might be. If I may refer again to this—I do not know how many times it has been referred to since Mr. Asquith said in 1911 that it was a question which "brooks no delay"—I would remind your Lordships that you can lead a Government to a brook but you cannot always make it jump. But judging from the gracious Speech it looks as though the jump is at last about to he made. Those who have supported this proposal for the last half century or so will wish the Government good luck in this task.

I cannot join with Lord Silkin in saying that we must again go to the country and again examine this matter in all its details. It is only eight years since recommendations on the composition of a new House were virtually agreed by leaders of that three Parties, and it was only because of some difference on technicalities between the Party opposite and the Party on the left that they were not able to come to terms. I do not think we have a tremendous job to do here, and I feel that under the very able guidance of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House who has taken such a helpful attitude in this matter it should be successfully accomplished. There is just one aspect of it upon which I should like to touch. I believe it is more or less generally accepted that there will be created a number of Life Peers to sit in your Lordships' House. I think it is conceded on all sides of your Lordships' House that that is probably a desirable and necessary thing.

As to the qualification for becoming a Life Peer, one presumes that such Peerages will be bestowed as the result of the merit and of what has happened in the career A the person involved. For that very reason it seems to me that we arc unlikely to get many Life Peers under the age of seventy, or even perhaps eighty years. I, for come, value highly the tremendous contributions which are made to the debates of this House by its younger Members. I am much tempted to mention names, which is a thing one ought not to do, but there are one or two young Peers particularly on the Government side, who seem to me to give great life to this House and to do work which is of great value. I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider this matter bearing in mind also the great value of youth in this House. Youth, of course, is a comparative term. If we take the words of the psalmist who tells us that the span of life is "three score years and ten", then those of us in your Lordships' House who are over thirty-five are past middle age.

The matter of capital punishment is going to he threshed out again in great detail. All I have to say is that this really is a matter of conscience, and not a flatter of obstinacy on either side of the House. I must say that the wording in the gracious Speech seems to me a little surprising. I refer to the words: "limit the scope of capital punishment." I do not suggest that if a man commits a murder he should be only slightly put to death, but it seems to me that the wording might be altered with some advantage. In dealing with this matter, I ask Her Majesty's Government to bear well in mind, as the Prime Minister I think has indicated that he wished to do, the very helpful suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Samuel that we can get round much of the difficulty by increasing the Prerogative of the Home Secretary.

The questions of anti-dumping and European Free Trade are very dear to the hearts of noble Lords on these Benches. Before the faces of noble Lords opposite fall too much, let me say at once that I am not going to proceed to deal with those two matters, because there are experts who will, I think, deal with them much better—partly because they are experts and partly because the matters will be cropping up at a time when it will be more suitable to deal with them in detail. I cannot help saying, however, how much we welcome the inclination shown by Her Majesty's Government towards this proposed new Free Trade area on the Continent.

When the noble and learned Viscount was reading the gracious Speech from the Woolsack I could not help noticing that the faces of several noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber seemed to fall to a great depth. I do not think they need have any great fear. This matter has been gradually built up and other countries are taking the initiative—we are not. I do urge that if this Federation of Free Trade is built up it would be a tragedy if we were left outside of it, only scrambled in later by some undignified means, which would not be advantageous to us.

Finally I would mention the fact (which is, of course, already known to your Lordships) that this country of ours is an island. In the old days the advantages of being on an island were obvious, but in these days they are less and less obvious, and indeed they are less and less physically, militarily and morally. I think that one of the disadvantages nowadays of being on an island like ours is that it is apt to give one astigmatism on the big issues in which the United Kingdom is only affected really as one element in world affairs. We are apt to be too much isolated. It may have been a good thing four hundred years ago, but it can be a good thing no longer. Let us pull together in this island. Let us argue fully and criticise incisively. But let us shun the poison of deep and bitter hostility between those who share that cherished and priceless common bond—British citizenship.

3.30 p.m.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

My Lords, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Lords. Lord Birdwood and Lord Cromer, for the speeches they made yesterday, which I thought were characterised by both happy phraseology and balanced judgment, two qualities that do not invariably go together. I was particularly struck by one of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, which I should like to emphasise with reference to the work of the Opposition in your Lordships' House.

Noble Lords who watched the progress here of the Road Traffic Bill and the Copyright Bill cannot but be filled with admiration for the noble Lords who took such an active part in that work. I think it is fair to say that both Bills were greatly improved in this House, and though noble Lords often complain that they do not always get their way, in fact, they make a very considerable impression on Bills before they leave this House. Whether that is a compliment to their powers of dialectic or a recognition of our willingness to meet them halfway, I do not know. One thing is certain: that Bills do not go to another place in the same form as when introduced in your Lordships' House. I should like to assure the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, that we fully recognise this fact, and that this is one of the important considerations which we have in mind in our proposals for the reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. I do not propose to go any further than that to-day, because I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House may say something before the day is out, and I am sure that your Lordships would much rather hear about it from him.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned a large number of subjects—and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, also mentioned a number—which were not, referred to in the gracious Speech, but I feel that it would be more useful to-day if I were to explain what is in the gracious Speech. May I be permitted to say this, however, on the question of betting? We still wish to proceed with the Betting Bill, although no reference to it is contained in the gracious Speech. We have encountered certain difficulties, and discussions are taking place with the different parties who are interested in this subject—those on the betting side, the Churches' Committee on Gambling and racing organisers. We felt that it would be desirable to try to get as near a measure of agreement as possible before bringing the matter before Parliament. I say this only because I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is justified in what he said.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, welcomed the steps which had been taken in the development of colonial government. I think we all welcome that. But sometimes I wonder whether we always remember the difficulties with which we are faced in trying to implant in the Commonwealth countries democratic institutions which we in this country have developed through some 600 years. Some people are inclined to think that it is only a matter of a ballot box and a Parliamentary Assembly; but in fact it is a great deal more than that. It is not only the introduction of democratic institutions, but also an endeavour to maintain freedom with human dignity and efficient administration—something that is not always so easy to obtain and which can be obtained only through the courage, wisdom and sense of responsibility of the statesmen concerned. I think that I can say, on behalf of your Lordships' House that we wish every success to those on whom the responsibility is likely to fall.

Perhaps I may mention shortly the question of capital punishment. A Bill is being introduced in another place to-day, and therefore I will say little more. I recognise fully what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said: that this is a matter or which people feel deeply. What we have endeavoured to do is to bring together the divisions which exist on the subject. There is not simply a division between the two Houses of Parliament, butt a division right through the country. We have followed closely what has been said by your Lordships, including the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to see whether we cannot obtain the highest measure of agreement that is possible.

I will refer shortly to the economic position of the country, which dominated so much of our consideration of the gracious Speech last year. We are engaged in an effort to stop inflation and to redeploy a larger proportion of our resources towards exports and investment. It is fair to say, I think, that the indications are that we are moving in the right direction. Retail prices have remained steady for six months, and the gap between imports and exports is smaller ages have risen more than prices in the last year and, what is of great interest, consumption has risen only slightly—about one per cent. This suggests strongly that savings have increased. I think that we can trace an increase in savings from the recent rise in small savings, in the fall in overdrafts and the repayments made on hire purchase. All this is encouraging.

We have to continue the policies which we are pursuing at present. For that reason, we propose to introduce a Bill to place the control of hire purchase on a permanent basis. I do not suggest that it will always be necessary to control hire purchase, but the Government feel that they should be in a position to do so, should they consider it to be necessary. Up to the present time, control has been exercised under Emergency Powers, and the Bill will enable us to dispense with these Emergency Powers. I should add that the main impact of the existing regulations will remain unchanged, at least for the time being, so that in fact the Bill will simply be changing the basis of control, and not the nature of the control itself. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, mentioned the question of subsidies. I think that we are all broadly agreed that consumer subsidies are not good in principle. They are expensive to the Government and, above, all, they are wasteful, because they artificially reduce prices and do so in places where it is not necessary. I think that everyone will agree that it is desirable to concentrate such funds as are available where they are most needed.

The noble Viscount, Lord Birdwood emphasised the need for technological education and referred to the quality element in that education. I have been abroad recently and was immensely struck by the volume of education which is being done in some countries. It seems to me that in the present interest in education there is a danger that there will be too much emphasis on volume and not sufficient on quality. None the less, I can say that we are going ahead with the building of the necessary accommodation. Local authorities have been told that up to the end of 1959 they can construct £40 million's worth of building for technological education. Already eight colleges for advanced technology have been. designated, and the awards to be made by them are now being examined by the National Council for Technological Awards, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. Lord Hives.

Our economic future depends on technology, but I think that technology is even less important than labour relations. The best technology in the world will be useless unless the relationships between those who have different responsibilities in industry are harmonious. We often complain about the number of days lost by strikes. It is interesting to note that up to September this year the number of days lost was substantially lower than that for the same period last year. At the present time, the figures given by the International Labour Organisation show the United States of America to have five to ten times as many days lost per 1,000 employed as we do, and the figures in this respect are more favourable to us than to Australia. Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, India and Japan, but not so good as to Germany and the Netherlands. I think the recognition of the importance of this subject has been brought out by the conference held by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred in such charming language yesterday. This indicates the high importance which we attach to this particular subject and to the need of understanding its nature.

I feel that I should say something on the paragraph dealing with European trade, perhaps one of the most important paragraphs in the gracious Speech. What I should like to emphasise is that this matter is still at the stage of consideration; and, in any case, the proposals cannot be brought into effect for a consider- able number of years. But one thing of which I am sure is that we cannot stand still on this matter. We shall have to take a decision of some character or another. We know that the Messina countries have been considering proposals which look like leading to a Customs Union. We could, of course, stand outside this, but it would almost certainly mean that we should have to compete in Europe over a tariff barrier; and to compete with Germany in such circumstances would, I think, put the industries of this country under a serious handicap. Only certain outlines have been made public by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I ask the House to recognise that the general lines are of a tentative character. I do not want to pretend that we have reached anything like finality.

What we have in mind is a situation where we should be able to continue our general policy of free entry of a large range of Commonwealth goods, together with reciprocal preferential arrangements which we enjoy at the present time. We would exclude all agricultural produce needed for human and animal consumption. This means that our agricultural policies will not be affected. We would retain the right to protect our trading with countries outside the European area in the manner which we think most suited to our commerce; that is to say, broadly we would allow the continued importation of raw materials and food and be free to protect our own production in our home markets. I do not disguise the fact that there are risks in such a policy, but no policy in this matter is devoid of risks. Clearly, I think there are substantial advantages. These are large issues, still subject to discussions and consultations which will continue, and I am sure it will be necessary in due course to have a full debate in this House on the subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the Anti-Dumping Bill. As he knows, for a long time we have been trying to discourage export subsidies, and, indeed, we have been fairly successful in doing so. Nevertheless, we have thought it right that we should take this further step to take powers to protect ourselves in cases where subsidising or dumping continues. Of course, we will administer this in conformity with our international obligations under G.A.T.T. and under O.E.E.C. I should like to make it clear, however, that this legislation is not aimed at genuine low-cost competition, but at those cases in which imports are clearly subsidised or dumped and which do harm to our domestic industry. I feel sure that this will be genuinely welcomed in the House.

I would say only a word or two as to the legislation about shops. This is a further instalment of legislation recommended by the Committee which met under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers. The former Bill that we passed—namely, the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act—was also based on the recommendations of that Committee. At the present time the law affecting shops is quite out of date and we hope to bring it more into line with modern requirements. I should now like to say a few words about the Film Bill, in which I expect the noble Lord. Lord Archibald, is interested. We are continuing what is generally known as the "Eady Plan" on a statutory basis. We hope that in due course it will be possible for the film industry to stand on its own basis without support but we think it is necessary that this form of assistance should continue to ensure that film production maintains a fairly high rate.

I should like to refer briefly to the question of nationalised industries. We have never been very fond of nationalisation as a method of management, but we have from the first taken the line that the nationalised industries must be run in the most efficient possible way. The gracious Speech mentions that there are two of them which we are tackling, in a manner which I hope will be broadly acceptable, because we think that this is the way in which they can best serve the public. I would say only this about the railways. I am certain that for three purposes the railways remain, and will always remain a vital requirement to the public. The first is transport of freight in bulk; the second is the carriage of passengers for long distances; and the third is the carrying of what I may call daily passengers. It is essential that these services should be maintained. We know that the modernisation scheme has been put forward but the financial results of that scheme will take time to mature, and in the interim period difficulties may occur.

For those reasons, we propose to make special advances up to £250 million from the Consolidated Fund to cover revenue deficits which the Commission will incur during the period of rehabilitation. These loans will be liable for interest, but for a limited period the Commission will be authorised to borrow additional special advances for the interest payments. All these advances will, of course, have to be repaid in due course. As the White Paper says: There is ample precedent in similar circumstances tot permitting undertakings, both public and private, to capitalise payments of such interest t and to raise additional money to meet them. We very much hope that this will in the end enable tie railways to operate in a sound, businesslike way using the most enlightened principles of private enterprise. This is something which, I may say, has already been achieved in the Air Corporations

I would now say a word or two about electricity. Careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Herbert Committee, and the Bill which will come for ward is largely based on the Report of that Committee. It is, I think, important to recognise that the Herbert Committee was the first full-scale review of a nationalised industry by an independent Committee appointed by the Government. It is therefore of special interest. I think it is Appropriate that these alterations in stricture should come at the present time, just when the first nuclear power station has come into operation and is feeding electricity into the grid. We will proceed, on the basis which will always be our approach to nationalised industry, whither we regard it as the best way of running the nation's activities and serving the public or not.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned subsidence caused by coal mining. I am glad that he welcomes that Bill, which will be based on the Turner Report. The Coal Mining Subsidence Act, 1950, covered structural damage to small dwellings only. Experience has shown how hard it is to draw a line between small and large he uses, and between houses and other kinds if property. In general, local authorities are not protected for damage to their set vice pipes. It is sometimes felt that thus puts an unfair burden on the rates. We propose an effective remedy by introducing a comprehensive measure that will require the National Coal Board to afford all land, buildings and service pipes the same degree of protection that is to-day given only to some small dwellings under the 1950 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the question of salt and other mines. I cannot give him an answer on that matter but, of course, ample opportunity will be given to ventilate that point.

As I expected, the noble Lord gave his views on rent control. This is a thorny subject, and I am glad that the noble Lord went as far as he did, without committing himself, in saying that the Rent Acts are not all they should be. That, at least, is some concession on his part, and I think it is putting it very mildly. The real fact of the matter is that rent controls are unfair to almost everybody. They are unfair to the tenant, who pays in certain cases a different rent from that of a neighbour living in exactly the same sort of house. They are unfair to those living in dilapidated houses which the landlord cannot afford to repair. They are unfair to landlords and, indeed, unfair to the country, because the most important thing of all is that our precious stock of houses should not be allowed to degenerate into slums. We have since the war built about 2½ million houses—that is about 20 per cent. of the houses in this country. Although I am aware that this is a bold measure. I think it is necessary that this difficult subject should be tackled. I am given to understand that the Bill is to be published today, and therefore I think it would be unwise for me to comment in detail on it at the present time.

I have only one other point I should mention, and that is regarding the police. The Government's attention has recently been drawn to certain weaknesses in the smooth working of the negotiating machinery for the Police Service. The reason was that statutory regulations which give effect to pay awards cannot operate retrospectively. The Government have decided that it would be right to remedy this defect, and the result will be to enable future increases in police remuneration to be given effect from such date as may be agreed in negotiation or recommended by arbitrators. It will also make it possible to carry out the recent award of the arbitrators to the Police Service. The Government have decided that this legislation shall also extend to the Fire and Probation Services.

I think I have covered most of the points in the gracious Speech and I hope I have been able to explain some of the Government's proposals. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, in saying that this is a heavy legislative programme and that The Times is wrong in saying that the programme is not particularly heavy. I am sure that we have a very heavy Session before us, and I know we shall be able to count upon the assistance of the noble Lord in seeing that these Bills are made as good as we can make them.

3.54 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, it falls to my lot on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in your Lordships' House, to make critical comment upon the contents of the gracious Speech in so far as it deals with economic and industrial matters—in other words, upon those aspects which confront us when we consider the problem of how we are going to earn our daily bread. Before I do so, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his most generous references to the work of the Opposition during the last Session. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that as he was speaking the thought went through my mind of the alleged comment of a young and, I am afraid, rather materialistic young lady who, when a gallant gentleman kissed her hand, said, "A kiss on the hand is so nice, but a diamond ring lasts a lifetime." Therefore, I feel I must support my noble friend Lord Silkin when he said that it matters not what you do with your Lordships' House, you will always have trouble and be confronted with difficulties until you have tackled the most materialistic problem, the economics.

Your Lordships' House has played a magnificent part as a revising Chamber. Now a revising Chamber has to be peopled by men who are willing to do the drudgery of legislation and of committee work—not coming down once now and again and making a brilliant speech upon some altruistic subject which will capture the headlines of the newspapers, but going on with reforming and revising Bills such as the noble Lord mentioned—the dry-as-dust Copyright Bill, and Bills of that description. My noble friend was quite right. It is a very hard struggle to have an effective Opposition in your Lordships' House, and the day your Lordships' House does not have an effective, intelligent and virile Opposition, it will cease to play its allotted part in the Constitution of this country.

Having said that, may I say one personal word to the noble Viscount Lord Hailsham, who will take on the difficult task of replying to this debate at the end of the proceedings to-day? I sympathise with him and admire his courage. I suppose of all Her Majesty's Ministers, he has had the most strenuous time during these last two weeks. To come here and tackle this job—a subject about which I remember he once said from the Back Benches of your Lordships' House, he knew nothing—is, I think, a feat that will fill us with admiration. He has my personal good wishes.

May I now deal with a number of matters that appear in the gracious Speech. I think that by far the most important is the one which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised, and that is the principle that there shall be a free trade area in Europe. That is the most momentous proposal that has appeared before Parliament and this country for many a long day. I can assure the noble Earl that it will receive the approbation of this side of your Lordships' House. If I were to make a personal comment, it would be that I am a "whole-hogger".

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

A what?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

A whole-hogger, and I hope the noble Viscount is one, too—

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I have never been anything else!

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I will not say in circumference, but in enthusiasm, because we must, as a country, if we are to maintain a reasonable standard of living for our people, increase our markets. We cannot go on giving a high standard of living to 50 million-odd people with only 50 million-odd customers. We cannot do what we want to do and build up our balance of payments so that we can play our part with our colleagues in the Commonwealth, as we did before the war when the interest on our overseas investments was the only thing which balanced our trading account. The balance of trade of physical imports and exports was against us then. I have asked the question in your Lordships' Souse many times: How do you think we are going to reverse it when the markets of the world gang up against us aid we have potential competitors in the export field that we have never had before? I really cannot see one difficulty, one criticism, that could be made of our entry into a European free trade market, which is not doubled trebled or quadrupled if we stay out of it.

Let us be honest about this matter. We have no option, unless we want to see German goods go into the European market tariff-free, and the tariffs against our own goods increased. Cold shudders went clown my back while the noble Earl was speaking. He seemed to be so apologetic. He wanted to impress your Lordships that this was only tentative that he was not committing anybody. I sincerely hole that Her Majesty's Government will not be content with entering into this European free trade market because they have to do it. I hope that they will go into it with initiative, and will lead the way.

Of course we shall have criticism; of course industry in this country will be divided, because there are so many in industry in (his country to-day who want to freeze the pattern of our industrial make-up into the old pattern that has been the same for fifty to a hundred years. When there are crises, such as the one e are up against in our balance of payments, one hears so many people standing up and saying, "Oh, yes; of course the old order of things has gone. We must have new ideas. We must revolutionise our thinking." Then they cast sidelong glances over their shoulders and lay all their plans to make sure that no such silly things are going to take place in their vested interests. Of course, some industries in this courtly will have a shaking up. If we and Her Majesty's Government believe that competition provides the incentive for efficiency, then, if we cannot compete, let us change the shape of some of our industries into more modern industries. There is a field open to us there as gigantic as anything we have had in the past.

I know that I shall cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in what I am about to say now. One of the criticisms about our entry into the European free trade market is that it will affect trade with our Commonwealth. I beg to suggest to your Lordships that that is nonsense. I happen to be one of those who believe that Imperial Preference is on its way out, not through anything that this country can do, not through any proposal of free trade in Europe, but by the very alteration in the economies of the countries in the Commonwealth: some countries in our Commonwealth to-day are lowering their tariffs on foreign goods and putting them up against British goods to protect their secondary and consumer industries: and that process will go on.

I know that the bulk of exports from the Commonwealth to this country will be in food and materials. The proportion has been put at 90 per cent. These imports are outside the scope of this free trade arrangement, so that only about 10 per cent. of the total can be affected. If we examine what that 10 per cent. is made up of we find that hardly any Commonwealth trade will be affected adversely by our entry into the European free trade market. There have been so many specious arguments—and, of course, arguments there will be. I shall listen to the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, as I always do. with respect. I expect he will put up a good argument. This idea that our trade with the Commonwealth will be adversely affected has not appealed to me yet perhaps it will after I have heard him speak.

The next subject I want to mention is one to which the noble Earl has referred, though instead of alleviating my fears he rather underlined them. I refer to the statement in the gracious Speech that: A measure will be laid before you to replace the existing emergency powers in respect of hire-purchase and hiring agreements and to regulate borrowing by hire-purchase finance companies". What is now subject to Emergency Regulations will go on the Statute Book. I believe that it was the Leader of the Conservative Party in another place who said that the great object of the Conservative Party was to create a property-owning democracy. My experience of the policies of Her Majesty's Government has been that they prevent anybody from owning anything, either by hire-purchase or in any other way. I would invite the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, if he will and if he can—and, if he cannot, I will not press the point—to tell me what is the Government's policy on the general principle of hire purchase—and I do not mean temporary regulations made to amend an immediate loophole. Many people in this country look upon hire purchase as a contraption of the devil, but I hold a different view. Hire purchase, properly regulated, so as to guard against the abuses that we have had in peace-time days, is a proper investment in an individual's propects for the future.

Why has hire purchase grown? Hire purchase grows with the increase in taxation because everybody has an income but no capital. The youngsters to-day the boys and girls who want to set up homes on their own, could never do it without hire purchase. I think it is something to be encouraged, not derided and hampered. I would not make comparisons in the state of hire purchase or time payments between America and this country but nobody in that great country ever pays cash for anything. A story is told of the young couple who, when their first child was born, paid the doctor's bill on "hire purchase" or time payments. Every twelve months he used to say to the young couple, "Go on. Don't you want it spread over another twelve months? Haven't I another bill due? The young girl said to the husband. "Do you mind, dear? Do you think the child will ever belong to us?" I want to know whether the Government are really out to foster hire purchase, with all the necessary safeguards, because once this measure gets solidified in the Statute Book I have serious apprehensions as to whether it will not he more of a hindrance than a help.

I now come to what I think may be one of the most industrially contentious parts of the gracious Speech, and that is the proposal to get over the financial difficulties of the railways. I do not intend to go into any great detail, but I want to ask the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government whether he will see that Her Majesty's Government put down a Motion in your Lordships' House so that the White Paper which deals with the matter can be debated before the legislation is introduced. It is far better that Her Majesty's Government should put down a Motion to take note of this White Paper, because that will give them an opportunity of explaining a number of the matters contained in it. If Her Majesty's Government cannot do that, perhaps we can have consultations through the usual channels as to whether we on this side of the House shall be able to do it.

Let us look at this matter for one moment. What is the simple arithmetic of the proposal? We have heard of the anticipated deficits, and the borrowings which will be made to balance those deficits. The loans and the interest on the loans will come to a sum of approximately £450 million—that is the simple arithmetic. And that sum is to be treated as a capital charge, instead of being written off as lost. I am not going to say that that is not the right way of doing it—it may be. There are other ways. I make the suggestion to the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, who I know will have a good deal to do with this matter in his capacity rot only as a Cabinet Minister but as the spokesman in your Lordships' House on these matters, that it might be better to attempt to arrive at the loss that has been made up to date, write it off as a loss, and say to the British Transport Commission, if I may use the vernacular, "From now on you have got to wash your face." That may be another way—I do not know.

I think that those of your Lordships who are knowledgeable on this subject should have an opportunity of debating it, because it is a very serious matter. Those of your Lordships who have read the White Paper must be impressed with the fact that it presents the country and Parliament with a serious problem. Parliament has first to make up its mind on this question: Are they going to take politics out of the railways? We have all played lip service to that principle, not only in this House but in another place. In their Report the British Transport Commission lay the blame for the deficits chiefly on the interference suffered from various Governments on the grounds of political expediency. Can we do as the Report suggests, and take politics out of the railways? Is it within our nature to do it?

Railway fires, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, knows, are political "dynamite." Do you think we can do something which must be done if this is not to be a recurring problem and the£450 million repaid upon what I once heard termed the "Kathleen Mavourneen "system—" It may be for years, or it may be for ever"?

Are the railways of this country going to be told that they are to be given a free hand in their charging arrangements, in the same way as any other commercial and industrial. I firms? We have a Tribunal "footling around" for months and months, and before one application for fare increase; leaves the Tribunal, another one is being formulated. What the Transport Commission say in this White Paper, and keep on saying, is that they will never get into a healthy financial position while they have to wait months and months for their charges to be allowed to catch up with increasing costs. Are we going to de that? If we do that, are we going to have the railways in the highly competitive position which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk envisages?

Modernisation will not cure the difficulties of t railways. They cannot be cured and put on a financially sound and a profit-earning basis until they are moderrised, but to-day the commercial ins met in British railways is archaic. They have not the slightest idea how to sell their services to the British public. The system is antiquated. As the noble Viscount knows very well, you well have glittering chromium-plated trains; you can have diesels; you can have this, that and the other in regard to modernisation; bat if you do not know how to sell what you have got to the public (and, of course, the roads start off with a Feat advantage over the railways, with a door-to-door conveyance), and unless you have good commercial selling brains, as well as engineers, you will never salve this problem.

Those are some of the things that this White Paper "shrieks" at one. I can only hope that when we come to debate it we shall have some replies from the Government. It is no good their bringing forward legislation and retaining this top-heavy structure of tribunals and conditions which existed when the railways had a complete monopoly of the transport of this country—which was in the days of George Stephenson or Queen Victoria, or halfway between the two. I am hoping that the Government will wake up to that fact before it is too late.

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the Herbert Report, which I have read. I shall be watching closely for this legislation. This is a critical Report. There are only one or two words that I am going to deal with from this voluminous Report, the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Electricity Supply Industry, which in paragraph 506 comes to the definite conclusion that the industry has not done as much hard thinking as it should about the economics of electricity supply. I brought this matter before your Lordships House, and I asked the Government whether they would hold an inquiry into whether, with the development of the railways and the development of atomic power, it was necessary to have this huge super-Grid. What has happened is that the electricity supply authorities of this country in putting in the home the amenity of electric light, have ruined the amenities of millions of people in the countryside. I still have the feeling that the day will conic when we shall find that we have wasted millions and millions of pounds. I put this thought to the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk. Perhaps he would like to have an inquiry into the hydroelectric schemes of Scotland; and he and the Government might consider whether the millions of pounds spent on damming the watersheds of the Highlands have not been wasted. Certainly I should imagine that in the years to come the whole outfit will be found to be a dead loss.

I think we are up against a big problem with the economics of the supply of electricity in this country, and when the legislation comes forward we on this side of the House may have something to say upon that matter. There is one other point about the electricity supply of this country: I regret that the terms of reference to the Herbert Committee did not include, and I am sorry that Committee did not extend their inquiries into the archaic methods adopted for consultation with citizens of this country whose amenities are desecrated by the laying of these lines overland. Perhaps we may hope that something more will be heard on this subject when the Oliver Franks Committee reports; but the public in- quiry system connected with the activities of the Central Electricity Authority in this country is a disgrace to any country which calls itself a democracy.

There is only one other point I want to mention. I am tempted to do so because it was mentioned by the noble Earl. Lord Cromer, in his excellent speech, upon which I would offer him my sincere congratulations. The noble Earl went outside the gracious Speech and said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 200, col. 17): I believe it is true to say that the general opinion is that the road programme is not being treated with the urgency which it merits. A masterly understatement! In the gracious Speech of last year Her Majesty then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 7): My Government will press forward their far-reaching programme of road construction and improvement. I am not going to say anything about the scope of the Road Plan. We all know it is inadequate; but that is not the fault or the responsibility of the Minister of Transport: he is governed by the Treasury. But the speed and the forcefulness with which the programme agreed to by Her Majesty's Government is going forward is a disgrace. There is procrastination and circumlocution at the official level. The whole atmosphere in the Ministry of Transport appears to be to do everything possible to delay getting on with the job instead of doing everything possible to speed up the programme of Her Majesty's Government.

We all hear that this work is a vital necessity, yet I could cite cases where many months have elapsed between the holding of a statutory public inquiry to listen to objectors and the time at which the Minister conies to any conclusions on the report of the inspector. Months elapse while we are jamming up our roads. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this matter seriously, because at the earliest possible opportunity we on this side of the House will put down a Motion on this particular issue and will press Her Majesty's Government very hard to give an account of their stewardship of the plan which they announced to the country.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he knows that, broadly speaking, I support him in this matter. Does he intend to put down the Motion of which he speaks in fairly wide terms or on a very narrow front, in some technical detail?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had intended to consult with all noble Lords in the House who are interested as to what the terms of the Motion should be, for this is not a Party matter. We have co-operated on all sides on this question and we have to put a spark behind Her Majesty's Government.

I finish by repeating the words of my noble friend, Lord Silkin: Her Majesty's Government may rely on having all the help and helpful criticism that we on this side can deploy to see that their legislative programme goes out, at the end of this coming Session. a credit to the House, as legislation always has been in the past.