Lords Sitting of 23 July 1957

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

  ST. JAMES'S THEATRE
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: 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 if they will state the name of the person who applied in 1954 for permission to erect an office block on the site of St. James's Theatre; what interest he had in the land then or subsequently; who are the applicants who have now received the permission of the London County Council to erect an office block on this site; who would have a claim for compensation if the permission were now revoked; and on what basis it is estimated that such compensation might amount to £50,000.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the persons who applied for permission in 1954 to erect an office block on the site of the St. James's Theatre were Messrs. L. O. L. Hannen and J. H. Markham, architects acting as agents for undisclosed prospective purchasers. I have no information as to what interest these prospective purchasers had in the land then or subsequently. The person who has now received the permission of the London County Council is Mr. R. Seifert, an architect acting on behalf of Viarex Property Investment Company, Limited. If the permission to erect an office block were revoked, a claim for compensation could be lodged by any person with any interest in the land. I am afraid that I do not know who holds what interest in this land at present.
  Compensation is governed by Section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as amended by Section 38 of the Act of 1954. Broadly, it is payable in respect of abortive expenditure or other loss or damage suffered by the
  32
  claimant including the depreciation in value of any interest in the land resulting from the revocation. When I spoke recently in your Lordships' House of a sum of something like £50,000 by way of possible compensation, I was deliberately naming a very cautious figure. Until a detailed claim was made, it would not be possible to give a close estimate. As I indicated, however, the sum I mentioned might well have to be doubled. Even if permission to erect an office block on the site of the St. James's Theatre were revoked, and compensation paid, that would provide no guarantee of the St. James's Theatre continuing in existence as a theatre. The owner could pull it down, or keep it empty, or turn it into a Turkish bath or cinema, without permission from anybody.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer and ask him how he can make an estimate of what could be claimed under the section of the Statute which he has quoted when he is quite ignorant about who has any interest in the land? May I also ask him whether he can say what is the relationship between Viarex Property Investment Company, Limited, and Mr. Fenston, who has disclosed that he has an interest which the noble Lord did not mention? Are the company and Mr. Fenston two names for the same person, or what is the relation between them?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as to the estimate of £50.000, which has been made with the guidance of the district valuer, I would emphasise to your Lordships' House that it is no more than a very rough guess. That is the valuation which I originally put upon it, and I repeat it. As to the connection of Mr. Felix Fenston with the firm of Viarex Property Investment Company, Limited, I know no more about that than does the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—namely, what we both read in the newspapers.
  LORD CONESFORD: When my noble friend says that the figure might well be doubled, I suppose that it might equally well be halved.
  LORD MANCROFT: Or quadrupled.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, referring to the noble Lord's reply, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that

  33
  the outgoing owner describes this theatre as "archaic" and that the incoming owner has said it is not possible to run it is future as an economic proposition, the Government will guarantee that the taxpayer will not be saddled by sentiment with this costly burden?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I can at this moment give no guarantees, but I can assume that there is some logic in what the noble Lord. Lord Blackford, says.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people have been comforted by some assurance given by the Ministry that this continued destruction of living theatres should be checked? Would the noble Lord be prepared, if I put down a Question, to give us the terms of any valid assurances by the Government which would tend to put an end to a destruction which many people regret?
  LORD MANCROFT: If the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, would be kind enough to read the speech which I made in the recent debate upon this subject in your Lordships' House—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have read it.
  LORD MANCROFT:—he will see that I referred to a decision taken by Mr. Duncan Sandys. then Minister of Housing and Local Government, which, I think, if the noble Viscount checks chapter and verse, will set his mind at rest upon that point.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: And it may be regarded as a binding declaration?
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
  LORD CONESFORD: When my noble friend expressed tentative agreement with what my noble friend Lord Blackford said about the views of the new owner, how can he explain his tentative agreement, since he does not know who the new owner is?
  LORD MANCROFT: That question is complicated, even for the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. If he would do me the friendliness and courtesy of waiting until we debate the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I will try, having deciphered it, to answer his question.

  RAILWAY MODERNISATION PROGRAMME
  2.42 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the estimated cost of the British Transport Commission's railway development scheme based upon current money values, costs and prices.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Railway Modernisation Programme was an outline plan covering the fifteen-year period up to 1970. Since it was published early in 1955, its scope and timing have been materially affected by certain technical decisions of major importance and by the obligation placed on the Commission in the White Paper of last year to break even by 1961 or 1962. The programme has got under way much sooner than was originally planned and is now well ahead of schedule. The effect of these factors and of the level of prices on the timing and cost of the programme is now being re-assessed by the Commission, and I regret that I am not yet able to give the House any revised figures of cost.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer is not in conformity with what I should have thought was the practice of a business concern like the British Transport Commission? Is he aware that two years ago the estimated cost of this modernisation plan was £1,200 million? I should have thought that perhaps the noble Lord would agree with me that the British Transport Commission Costs Department would have kept abreast of the times by having up-to-date figures. If I put down a Question in a week's time, could the noble Lord tell me whether it would be in the region of just under or just over £2,000 million?
  LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords; I can do neither of those things. As the noble Lord has said, the figure was, admittedly, originally £1,200 million. I should be very surprised indeed, but gratified, to learn that that figure had gone down, but I cannot tell the noble

  35
  Lord to what figure it has been raised. If he puts down a Question I will certainly do my best to answer it. Perhaps I can console him by saying that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation intends to make a statement in another place tomorrow which may be of some assistance to the noble Lord.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, in view of the continued fall in the value of money under this Government, is it possible to make any estimate for the future?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is no more possible to make an estimate than it was in the days when the noble Earl was himself Prime Minister.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord? While thanking him for his courteous reply, I think he will agree with me that the public—the taxpayers—have the right to be kept informed of the new values of projects of this gigantic size. As the estimated cost two years ago was £1,200 million, it should be within the realms of possibility for the House to be given what is the British Transport Commission's estimate of cost based on modern prices.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is perfectly right, and the Commission hope very shortly to be able to give this figure. But, as he will appreciate, there have been changes more widesweeping than ordinary business expects to meet in its day-to-day affairs. It does not detract in any way at all from the Commission's desire to be completely frank with the owners or the taxpayers.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if I put down a Question, would the noble Lord do his best to give the House that figure?
  LORD MANCROFT: I will do my best. I cannot promise any more than that.

  FLEET—DRAKELOW SUPER-GRID COST
  2.45 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. I beg to ask the second question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will state the cost of the Fleet—Drakelow 275 Kv super-grid up to the time of its abandonment.]
  THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I am informed by the Central Electricity Authority that the proposal for this 275 kilovolts connection between Fleet in Hampshire and the Drakelow Generating Station near Burton-on-Trent had not gone beyond the planning stage when the Authority decided to suspend the project for the time being. Although preliminary discussions had taken place with local planning authorities no application had been made to me for my consent to the line and no contracts had been let by the Authority in connection with it. The cost of the project has therefore been confined to the cost of the preliminary work done on it by the Authority's own planning engineers and their administrative and wayleave staff. The amount of money involved is therefore small and no figure can properly be attached to it.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply; and may I offer, if not to the noble Lord—he may be too modest to accept them—my congratulations to somebody for nipping in the bud this project before the taxpayers' money was wasted?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt Business, but I have to inform your Lordships that there will be a statement by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, Lord Home, at about half-past three, on the reorganisation of the Services, and also one on the situation in Muscat by the noble Earl. Lord Gosford, soon after.

  GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  2.48 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
  Considered on Report (according to Order).

  DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  House in Committee on Re-commitment of the Bills (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15) Bills read 3a, and passed.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee.
  The Committee reported as follows:
  1.—RECORD COPIES OF PUBLIC ACTS
  The Committee have considered a report from the Sub-Committee appointed on the 10th April last to consider whether the record copies of Public General Acts should be printed on good durable paper instead of vellum. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from Sir John Simpson, C.B., Controller of H.M. Stationery Office, and from Mr. Maurice Bond, Clerk of the Records of the House, and recommended that the existing practice of printing record copies of Public Acts on vellum should be continued, The Committee adopted the Sub-Committee's recommendation.
  2.—OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
  The Committee approved an increase in the annual retaining fee for the Official Shorthand Writer as agreed with the House of Commons and the Treasury with effect from the 1st April 1957.
  3.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
  The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishments Circulars—

  11/57 and 25/57

  Improvement of Higher Grades Pay,

  21/57

  Pay etc., of Messengers and Paperkeepers,

  23/57

  Pay of Women Cleaners,

  to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
  The Committee also sanctioned consequential increases in superannuation awards in three cases.
  4.—HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
  The Committee were informed of the increasing pressure of work en the Hansard Reporting Staff, and accordingly authorised the appointment of an additional whole-time Reporter.
  5.—POLICE
  The Committee authorised provision for the increased cost of Police services for the year ending 31st March, 1958.
  6.—ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE
  The Committee sanctioned the commencing salary paid to Mr. C. G. Osborne on his appointment as Clerical Officer in the Parliament Office from 6th May, 1957.
  7.—RETIREMENT OF PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO THE LORDS OF APPEAL
  The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Ernest Charles Bolting. M.B.E., who retired from the post of Personal Assistant to the Lords of Appeal on 23rd June, 1957, after 36 completed years' service in the Parliament Office.
  8.—EXPENSES OF PEERS
  The Committee were informed that provision had been made in the House of Lords Vote for enabling members of the House, other than Ministers, etc., to recover any expenses certified by them as incurred for the purpose of attendance at sittings of the House or of Committees of the House, other than sittings for judicial business, within a maximum of three guineas for each day of such attendance.
  9.—LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
  The Committee approved the Treasury proposal to increase the salary of the Lord Chairman of Committees from £2,500 to £3,250 with effect from 1st July, 1957.
  10.—ESTIMATES
  A Supplementary Estimate for the House of Lords for the year 1957–58 arising out of the last two items mentioned above, was laid before the Committee and approved.
  11.—POSTAL FACILITIES
  The Committee considered whether any arrangements could be made for providing "Official Paid" envelopes for Peers when writing on official business, and requested the Clerk of the Parliaments to look into this question.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, when I asked the House yesterday to postpone this matter until to-day I thought that the Lord Chairman of Committees, the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, would be able to be here. As he is not able to be here, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
  Moved. That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNORS' PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee on Recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): the Amendment made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15) the Amendment reported; Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COAL-MINING SUBSIDENCE BILL
  2.55 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  Duty of National Coal Board in respect of subsidence damage
  (3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may, instead of executing remedial works under the last foregoing subsection, elect—
  (a) to make a payment equal to the cost reasonably incurred by any other person in executing remedial works; or
  40
  and, without prejudice to the next following subsection, the Board—
  (iii) where for any reason it is not in the public interest that the Board should themselves execute the remedial works,
  shall make the appropriate election under this subsection, and, in any other case where it is proposed to execute such merged works or redevelopment works as aforesaid or where the remedial works required are of a special character not suitable for execution by the Board, shall not unreasonably refuse any request to make the appropriate election under this subsection received from a person entitled to serve a damage notice in respect of the property:
  LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "any such services as aforesaid" and insert "gas, electricity, water, heating, telephone". The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which has been put down to meet a point raised by the British Waterworks Association and the Water Companies Association. At present Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill covers pipes and wires within a building or structure that supply gas, electricity, water, heating and telephone services for use in that building or structure. Clause 1 (1) (b) covers pipes and wires outside buildings and structures that supply "any such services as aforesaid" and other comparable services.
  Our intention is that Clause 1 (1) (b) should cover all service pipes and lines outside buildings and structures. It has been suggested, however, that the effect of the words "services as aforesaid" is to limit the paragraph to service pipes and lines supplying a service to a building or structure and so shut out, for example, a trunk water main running from a reservoir to a water works. I am moving this Amendment to remove any possible doubt. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 6, leave out ("any such services as aforesaid") and insert ("gas, electricity, water, heating, telephone").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in paragraph (iii) of subsection (3), to leave out "for any reason" and to insert:
  "it is certified by the Minister, on an application made to him by any other person or of his own motion, that in his opinion"
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment can, I suggest to your Lordships, be considered with Lord Macdonald of

  41
  Gwaenysgor's Amendment. Both Amendments are designed to meet a point which was raised both in the Standing Committee and on Report stage in another place. The Bill provides that normally the Board are free to choose between doing remedial works and paying the cost. But the Board have to make a cost-of-works payment (instead of doing remedial work) when the damaged property is a highway or when the execution of remedial works falls within a statutory duty imposed on a Government Department, local authority or statutory undertakers, or when, for any reason, it is not in the public interest that the Board should themselves execute the remedial works.
  The last point has been included to cover a variety of cases. For example, it would cover the execution of remedial works on the property of a water undertaking access to which was limited for public health reasons. Or there might be reasons of national security why the National Coal Board's staff or workmen should not go on a particular property. Under the subsection as it stands, disputes about what is in the public interest would fall to be settled by the courts. There was a good deal of feeling in another place that this would give rise to unnecessary litigation and that it was better that the question of public interest should be settled simply by the Minister. The Government have considered this matter further in the light of the discussions in another place and have decided to meet the Opposition's point. The object of the Government's Amendment is therefore the same as that of Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor's Amendment, but slightly more tightly drafted. We hope that it will prove acceptable to your Lordships' House and that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, will not be pressed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 24, leave out ("for any reason") and insert ("it is certified by the Minister. on an application made to him by any other person or of his own motion, that in his opinion").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD, MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: It is now only necessary for me to thank the noble Lord the
  42
  Minister for having accepted what I had in mind. I agree that his phrasing covers the matter more tightly than mine did. He, like his colleagues in another place, has shown great readiness to accept the various suggestions which we have made and to honour the various undertakings given, and we thank him.
  LORD LAWSON: May I say that I, too, am very pleased that our Amendment has been practically accepted. I believe it is a good thing that the Minister should be the chief authority in this matter, but I feel that it should be underlined in your Lordships' House, and that the public should know, that an ancient wrong done to great masses of people during the last century or two of mining is now being righted and that people who suffer will have a remedy even though they have not the money to go to litigation. This Bill makes a very great and good change, and I wish to underline what I said on a previous occasion, that had it not been for national ownership of the mines this Bill would have been impossible. Undoubtedly when this Bill becomes an Act, it is going to lay a great deal of financial responsibility upon the National Coal Board which the mining industry has not had before. Some of us have always thought that the Coal industry generally was avoiding its obligations towards these people, and a great many innocent and sometimes poor people will benefit as a result of this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  3.3 p.m.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: There is just one point I wish to raise with the noble Lord the Minister. We are a little concerned about the position, in that the Bill provides for the possibility of remedial works or depreciation payments. We are more interested in remedial works, and we are afraid that the tendency may be towards the depreciation payments. We should like the noble Lord the Minister to give the House a brief explanatory statement of the paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection (4). Perhaps he will try to make clear that it is not his intention that this should be a piece of legislation

  43
  dealing mainly with depreciation payments but one dealing, as far as possible, with remedial works.
  LORD MILLS: I must confess that I understand the noble Lord's difficulty in following the intention of paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of subsection (4), but in fact they cover quite a simple point. The Bill places on the National Coal Board a general obligation to do or pay for remedial works when property is damaged by mining subsidence. This is, broadly, the effect of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause, and their main purpose is to ensure that the repairs are done. But there will be some cases when remedial works would not be an appropriate remedy, and subsection (4) deals with these cases. Paragraph (a) of subsection (4), which follows the 1950 Act, needs little explanation: it deals with the case where remedial works would not give value for money. Paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with the case where a property is so badly damaged by mining subsidence that it is liable to be proceeded against under the Housing Acts by a local authority. Clearly, there is no point in doing remedial works to a house which has got to be demolished. The subsection provides that in these cases where the National Coal Board do not have to do remedial works, the owner of the property shall be fully compensated for the loss of value caused by the mining subsidence. I think it will be generally agreed that this is fair and reasonable.
  It remains for me to explain the rather long passage in subsection (4) which refers back to paragraphs (b) and (c). This provides that if the Coal Board start to repair a property, and action is taken against them under the Housing Acts before the repairs are completed, then the Coal Board must ensure that the owner does not suffer and must pay him the full loss in value. This provision w ill enable the Coal Board to do repairs in suitable cases, but they must back their own judgement financially, and if their judgement should be at fault the owner of the property will not have to suffer.
  I am sorry that these provisions are so complicated. The trouble is that we have to tie them up with the Housing Acts, but I think they are a fair and practical way of tackling a rather complicated problem which will become of increasing import
  44
  ance as the slum clearance drive gets under way. There is one point I should like to emphasise. These provisions do not provide in any way for the National Coal Board to underwrite the cost of slum clearance. The provisions come into operation only if a property which was fit for habitation before the subsidence damage occurred is rendered unfit for habitation by that damage, and they provide only for the payment of compensation for the loss in value caused by the subsidence damage. Compensation for the property which remains after the subsidence damage and which the local authority may order to be demolished will be dealt with under the Housing Acts. I hope that I have managed to make the position clear and that the Committee will accept these provisions.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Notices to be given to or by Board]:
  LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the new Clause 6, "Special provisions as to ancient monuments, etc." Under Clause 2 (2) the National Coal Board have to say as soon as reasonably practicable whether they are going to discharge their obligations by making a payment instead of executing remedial works themselves. In the case of ancient monuments and historic buildings, the Board may not be able to make this decision until they know the views of the Minister of Works on the remedial works which are necessary. Accordingly, this Amendment provides that the Board must give their decision as soon as reasonably practicable having regard to the provisions of the new clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 47, after ("six") insert ("Special provisions as to ancient monuments, etc.").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Cause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Power of Board to recover expenditure in certain cases]
  LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
  "(5) Where under subsection (1) of this section the Board have recovered any expenditure incurred by them under section one of this Act from a licensee of the Board, then,

  45
  so far as that expenditure was incurred under subsections (2) to (5) of the said section one, the three last foregoing subsections shall have effect as if that expenditure had been incurred by the licensee and as if for any reference in those three subsections to the Board there were substituted a reference to the licensee:
  Provided that the licensee shall not be entitled to recover the amount of any payment made by him before he became a licensee of the Board."
  The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment to meet a point raised by the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain. There are still several hundred small coal mines which are operated by private enterprise, usually one- or two-man businesses, under licence from the National Coal Board. Subsidence caused by the operations of these licensees is covered by the Bill, and Clause 7 gives the Board the power to recover from the licensees' expenditure which they have to incur under the Bill because damage has been caused by the licensees' operations. Clause 7 also gives the Board a quite separate power to recover, in certain circumstances, payments which they themselves have made to be relieved of liability for subsidence damage. The Small Mines Federation have pointed out that similar payments have sometimes been made by small mine licensees, and they have asked that the licensees should be given a power of recovery similar to that enjoyed by the Board. This seemed to me a very fair proposal, and I have put down this Amendment to carry it into effect. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mills)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  3.14 p.m.
  LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
  Special provisions as to ancient monuments, etc.
  ".—(1). This section shall apply in relation to any subsidence damage where the damaged property is—

  (a) Specified in the Schedule to the Ancient Monuments Protection Act. 1882, or for the time being specified in a list published under section twelve of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913; or

  (b) notified to the Board by the Minister of Works as an ancient monument within the
  46
  meaning of the Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 to 1953, for the time being under the care of that Minister; or

  (c) a building notified to the Board by the Minister of Works as being in that Minister's opinion of outstanding historic or achitectural interest.

  (2) If and so far as, having regard to the nature and extent of the subsidence damage, it is practicable and in the public interest so to restore the damaged property to a condition comparable to its condition at the date immediately before the subsidence damage occurred as to maintain the historic, architectural, architectural, or other special interest attaching thereto at that date, then, for the purposes of remedial works to that property, that property shall not be deemed to be reasonably fit for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act unless it has been so restored.
  (3) Any dispute arising under the last foregoing subsection as to whether or how far it is practicable or in the public interest to restore any property as mentioned in that subsection shall be determined by the Minister of Works."
  The noble Lord said: I have put down this new clause to fulfil an undertaking given by my honourable and learned friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. He promised that we would make it abundantly plain that when a building fulfils a purpose as an ancient monument, as well as a functional purpose, the Coal Board, when repairing subsidence damage, will have to do it in a way which takes account of the building's function as an ancient monument. In fact, we have gone beyond the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking. Ancient monuments, as legally defined, are buildings which are no longer lived in. There are, however, some buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest which are not legally ancient monuments but which ought to be repaired with the same care as ancient monuments. In this clause, therefore, we cover not only ancient monuments but also buildings notified to the Coal Board by the Minister of Works as being, in his opinion, of outstanding historic or architectural interest. I understand that the Minister of Works will, when this can properly and conveniently be done, take the advice of his Historic Buildings Councils about the notification of buildings under this provision.
  The Coal Board's obligation under the Bill in cases where they repair subsidence damage to an ancient monument or to an historic building will be to restore it to its condition immediately before the damage Ito the extent that this is practicable and in the public interest. Any dispute about what is practicable and in

  47
  the public interest will be settled by the Minister of Works, whose Department have much expertise and experience in dealing with ancient monuments and who are particularly well qualified to deal with these issues.
  I am grateful to the Opposition for having drawn attention to the need to make the Bill more precise in relation to ancient monuments, and I hope that the new clause will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mills.)
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I rise merely to welcome this Amendment. We have not many such monuments in the mining areas—our forefathers were much too wise to put them there but there are a few, and we do want to preserve those few. Therefore, we welcome the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Special provisions as to certain Tenants]:
  LORD MILLS: With your Lordships' permission, I think that this Amendment can conveniently be considered with the two following Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9. Clause 9 gives tenants who have carried out improvements at their own expense a right to claim under the Bill if such an improvement is damaged by mining subsidence and if the tenant would have been entitled under certain Acts to compensation for the improvement from his landlord if the tenancy had come to an end at the time the damage occurred. A tenant who makes a claim under this provision must, so that the Coal Board will know that he is properly entitled to make the claim, either obtain the agreement of his landlord to his making of the claim or start proceedings under the appropriate Act to establish-that he would have been entitled to compensation for the improvement from his landlord if the tenancy had fallen in at the time the damage occurred. The person with whom the tenant has these dealings is, in fact, his immediate landlord and not the ultimate owner of the property as such, but the clause as it now stands refers to the ultimate owner. These three Amendments put this right. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 21, leave out ("the owner") and insert ("his landlord").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 43, leave out ("the owner and that person") and insert ("that person and his landlord").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 47, leave out ("the owner or that person") and insert ("that person or his landlord").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Special provisions with respect to ecclesiastical property, settlements, etc.]:
  LORD MILLS: I think that, with your Lordships' permission, this Amendment can conveniently be considered with the next one. I have put down these two Amendments to fulfil an undertaking given in another place by my right honourable friend the Paymaster General that we would consider amending Clause 11 so as to provide that, where someone is killed by subsidence damage, people who were partly maintained by the deceased, as well as those who were wholly or mainly maintained, would have a claim under the clause. We have now decided that this is possible and I have put down these Amendments to give effect to this change. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 38, leave out from ("pay") to the end of line 7 on page 20 and insert ("the like damages, recoverable in the like manner and within the like time, as would have been payable if—

  (i) the death had been attributable to the negligence of the Board; and

  (ii) the persons by or on behalf of whom an action could have been brought against the Board for damages in respect of the death if it had been so attributable included any person who at the time of the death was, or but for the injury would have been, wholly or partly maintained by the deceased; and

  (iii) where the death resulted from an injury caused in England or Wales, the

  49
  damages were claimed under the Fatal Accidents Acts. 1846 to 1908.")—(Lord Mills.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 29.—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Interpretation, etc.]:
  LORD MILLS: This Amendment makes a drafting change in the definition of "structure" in the interpretation clause. I am advised that not merely might the inclusion of the words "on the surface of any land" operate to exclude such things as roads and railway lines, when running through a tunnel, but that, further, their inclusion might cast a doubt upon whether or not the word "structure" included other things constructed under or into the ground as, for example, a brick or concrete lined well or borehole. I am advised that the Amendment removes those doubts. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 10, leave out from ("works") to ("providing") in line 11.—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  First Schedule [Provisions as to dwelling-houses rendered uninhabitable]
  LORD MILLS: With your Lordships' permission, this Amendment may conveniently be considered with the following four Amendments. They are all drafting Amendments. The First Schedule provides that when a house is rendered uninhabitable by subsidence damage, the Coal Board must either provide or pay for alternative accommodation for the residents. There may be some cases when the damage is so bad that the residents will have to move out at once and find alternative accommodation for themselves until they can notify the Coal Board of the damage and the Board can provide alternative accommodation themselves, if that is how they are going to discharge their obligations. In these cases, it is our intention, provided that
  50
  notice has been served on the Board within the prescribed time and that the house really has been made uninhabitable, that the Board should pay the extra expenses which the residents have to incur until the Board themselves provide alternative accommodation.
  I am advised that, as the Schedule now stands, though this intention is pretty clearly implied, there is an element of doubt as to the Board's responsibility in such case, and I do not think it would be fair, either to the Board or the people who may be rendered homeless by subsidence damage, to leave any doubt on this point. So I have put down these Amendments to clear up any possible doubt. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 24, leave out ("as they may elect either").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 36, after ("dispossession") insert ("during which such alternative living accommodation as aforesaid is not made available").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 43, after ("dispossession") insert ("during which such alternative living accommodation as aforesaid is not made available").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 47, leave out from ("as") to end of line and insert ("aforesaid").—(Lord Mills).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and without prejudice to their liability under the two foregoing sub-paragraphs in respect of any part of the period of dispossession falling before the making of their election, the Board may elect which of the courses

  51
  open to them under the said sub-paragraphs they will for the time being adopt in any particular case.")—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR had given notice of his intention to move, in paragraph 5, to leave out sub-paragraph (3). The noble Lord said: The Amendments which we have just disposed of and the two Amendments which follow mine will do what I want to do by my Amendment, but until I have heard what the noble Lord has to say in moving Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, I would reserve the right to put down an Amendment on Report stage. At the moment I am happy not to move my Amendment.
  LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in paragraph 5 (3), to leave out from "expenditure" to "is" and to insert "incurred by him by way of rent and rates". The noble Lord said: I think that this Amendment and the next one might, with your Lordships' permission be considered together. I have put down these Amendments to fulfil an undertaking given in another place by my right honourable friend the Paymaster General. Paragraph 5 (3) of the First Schedule at present empowers the National Coal Board, when they fulfil their obligations under the Schedule by providing alternative accommodation themselves, to recover as rent for the alternative accommodation, the savings, if any, which the people concerned are making on rent, rates and household expenses on the damaged house. There was a good deal of feeling in another place that, in order to make these recoveries, the Coal Board would have to pry into the household affairs of the homeless people; and the Paymaster General promised to see whether we could amend the provision so as to limit the Coal Board's power of recovery to the saving on rent and rates.
  I have put down these Amendments to give effect to this undertaking but they also go a little further. They limit the amount which the Coal Board can recover to the saving in rent and rates on the damaged house. There may, however, be cases when the people concerned are obliged to spend more on household expenses because the accommodation is in some ways less convenient than their damaged home. The Amendments provide that in these cases the saving on rent
  52
  and rates which the Board can recover will be reduced by any extra household expenses which the people concerned can show they have had to incur. I think this is fair to the residents of the damaged house, and it will avoid prying by the Board in order to make their recovery: it will be left to the individual to decide whether to disclose details of his household expenses in order to secure a reduction in the amount which the Board can recover. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 44, leave out from ("expenditure") to ("is") in line 45 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MILLS: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 47, at end insert ("reduced by any amount by which that resident shows that the aggregate expenditure reasonably incurred by him by way of food, living accommodation (other than rent or rates). heating, light and other household expenses is greater than it would have been in the circumstances aforesaid").—(Lord Mills.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.

  REORGANISATION OF THE FIGHTING SERVICES
  3.32 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement which is being made by the Prime Minister in another place in answer to a Question relating to the various Service matters. The Prime Minister said:
  "In the first place I should like to make it clear that the Government have no intention of merging the three fighting Services into a single defence force. The development of new weapons and new techniques of warfare will call for even closer cooperation between the Services in training and in the field; and measures for more effective co-ordination are being studied both in the command structure and also in the central administrative organisation. But each of the three Services will continue to have

  53
  its separate rôle and function and each will continue to maintain its separate identity and traditions.
  "Within each Service, however, far-reaching reorganisation will be required in order to give effect to the reduction in total strengths which has been announced. The Army faces a specially difficult problem because of its structure of separate corps and regiments. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War has devised plans which are designed to preserve the regimental traditions on which the strength of the Army is founded. These plans are based on the principle of amalgamation of regiments, rather than disbandment. Details will be given in a White Paper to be presented by the Secretary of State for War to-morrow.
  "In all the Services the large reduction in numbers which is to be carried out over the next five years must mean for many officers and men a premature end of their chosen career. For them the Government have undertaken to provide fair compensation which will take account, not only of the curtailment of their service, but also of their loss of prospects. The terms of compensation will be announced in a White Paper which is to be presented tomorrow by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence.
  "The Government also have a special obligation to assist these men to find employment in civilian life. For this purpose the existing agencies are being linked in a Regular Forces Resettlement Service. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is appointing a Board, including representatives of industry and commerce under the Chairmanship of Sir Frederic Hooper, to advise on the development of this Service. The details of the Resettlement organisation will be made known separately.
  "The radical reorganisation of our defence forces on which we have embarked involves, inevitably, a widespread disturbance of existing patterns—both for the Services themselves and for many individuals in them. We shall do our utmost to see that those who suffer by these changes are treated fairly and honourably. But let us not forget that the purpose of the new de
  54
  fence policy is to re-shape the Forces so as to enable them to discharge their task effectively in the world of tomorrow. None of the Services will be able to maintain its high traditions unless its officers and men are confident of its capacity to adapt itself to the changing conditions of war. I believe that the new pattern of the Forces—smaller, but better organised and equipped for their new tasks—will continue to afford fine opportunities for service for those who seek their career in the Armed Forces of the Crown."
  My Lords, that is the statement made by the Prime Minister. As noble Lords will see, there are going to be two White Papers. Perhaps very conveniently, and by lucky timing, we have a debate next Wednesday on the Army Estimates. My noble friend Lord Mancroft is here and is acquainted with the details, but it might be better, if your Lordships thought fit, to avoid detailed questioning to-day until we have seen the White Papers, and we can probably go into these fully next Wednesday. However, I am in your Lordships' hands.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Leader of the House for the statement he has made, and I agree with the general principle that he has suggested for to-day, with a view to the debate next week. However, I should like to ask whether in the White Paper which is to deal with the amalgamation of corps and regiments there will be given a schedule showing the actual details of which regiments are now proposed for amalgamation, and how they will be grouped. I would say at once that we on this side of the House welcome the fact that in dealing with this matter it is not proposed to deal with it by a ruthless disbandment of the Forces, but rather by retaining regimental traditions by a process of amalgamation. As the terms of compensation referred to in the statement are to be in the White Paper, and provided they are going to be given in detail for all ranks, we are quite happy to leave them for discussion when we come to the debate on the Army Estimates.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, so far as the compensation is concerned, the White Paper will, I understand, go into great detail. So far as a schedule giving details of amalgamation is concerned,

  55
  perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition would wait for the White Paper. I am not quite sure how much detail of that there will be.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I must say that unless the White Paper gives the names of regiments which are to be amalgamated, I think it will be highly unsatisfactory. Parliament is to rise in a week or so, and I think that we in this House should have an opportunity of debating the proposed arrangements in detail. Many of us are much concerned in some of these regiments; we all have our own regiments, and we want to know what their fate is going to be before we rise for the Recess.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, probably we had better wait for the White Paper and we shall have a chance for debate.

  TANGANYIKA AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION BILL
  3.40 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I hope and expect that this Bill will be welcomed on all sides of the House. The Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation took over the properties in Tanganyika from the Overseas Food Corporation in 1954, and then became responsible for carrying forward the experimental part of the work of what had initially been the much more ambitious effort of the groundnuts scheme. I do not wish to go in any way into the past history of this scheme. The work of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation has been quite separate, except that it has had the advantage of using some of the ground cleared by the Overseas Food Corporation.
  The task set the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation was to take this ground and conduct experiments for its best use, employing Western knowledge and techniques. The outcome would, it was hoped, be a profit to those working the land and a value to other marginal lands in East Africa and elsewhere in Africa. For two years before really getting down to work, the Company devoted their atten
  56
  tion to research and investigation. Then they took the three main areas and developed them in the light of what research had indicated they were best suited for. In one case, it was mainly cattle; in another tobacco and other crops; and in the third, mixed farming.
  The scheme has been going most satisfactorily, but another five years will be needed before it will have been proved to the satisfaction of all concerned that the schemes can stand on their own feet as well founded and the methods used can be established as of broader application. Originally, £1,700,000 was allotted for the purpose of the Corporation until October of this year. This money was to be outside the ceiling set by the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts for normal development and welfare schemes. Of this amount, a balance of about £500,000 has not been spent, those responsible for the Corporation's activities having proceeded with care and thoroughness. The purpose of the Bill is to give the Corporation, through the Tanganyika Government, the continued support they require for their programme up to 1962 at a cost which is estimated should not exceed £500,000. It would have been possible up to 1960 to use ordinary Colonial Development and Welfare funds for this purpose, but that would have meant so much less for other schemes, and after 1960, when the present Colonial Development and Welfare Act conies to an end, there would have been uncertainty. For these reasons, it was felt best to have the Bill which is before your Lordships. To avoid any overlap or dual provision, subsection (3) of Clause 1 specifically rules out these Colonial Development and Welfare Funds after October.
  The latest news of the Corporation's activities is to be found in the Annual Report, a copy of which has been placed in the Printed Paper Office. I will not take up your Lordships' time with the details of what is a very satisfactory story. Results in all three areas are most encouraging, and these are due to the Chairman of the Corporation, Mr. Stuart Gillett, his board, and all the members of the staff. It will be seen from the Report that for the year 1955–56 gross expenses were £550,000 and gross receipts £365,000, leaving a net cash expenditure of £185,000. It is expected

  57
  and hoped that in the coming years this net cash expenditure will steadily decrease, until by 1962 the items will be self-balancing, It is to meet this declining expenditure that the £500,000 is to be allocated.
  One of the most encouraging features has been the continued success of the African tenant schemes. These schemes, which have been established in all three areas, are designed to promote the evolution of a class of African yeoman farmer. Land, tools, seed and instruction are provided for selected peasant farmers who show the initiative and desire to leave the subsistence economy, and they are brought on to the final stage of managing, unaided, their own small estates. The schemes continue to grow, and the number of tenants has now passed the 200 mark. The whole scheme is on a non-racial basis, and although at the moment only a few of the Africans are in the higher grade of employees, the aim is for more. Much has been learned in the last years about agricultural conditions and practice, and more may confidently be looked for in the coming five years for which the £500,000 is sought in this Bill. The lessons will be of great value, not only for the area where the experiments have taken place, but for Tanganyika genera-ally and, indeed, all those parts of Africa which are faced with similar problems. I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Perth.)
  3.47 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on this side welcome the object of this Bill, assuming, as we take to be the case, that it has had the blessing of the Tanganyika Government and of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation itself. The explanatory note is a little confusing, and that is why I listened carefully to what the noble Earl had to say. I want to be quite sure that this amount is in substitution for the amount agreed to be paid under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act; and that I understand is the case. I say that because in the Foreword to the Report of the Corporation, to which the noble Earl has referred—a Report which, I may say, came into my hands only a few minutes before we came into the
  58
  House this afternoon—I notice this statement:
  "As noted in Chapter 1 of this Report, Her Majesty's Government has signified its preparedness in principle to continue providing the Corporation with assistance from United Kingdom funds—additional to the sum provided by the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts—for a further five years from the 1st October, 1957, subject to terms which are presently under consideration."
  From that reference it would appear that the Corporation were under the impression that they were going to get this £500,000 in addition to the balance of £1,700.000 which they were getting under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. I take it—and I should like confirmation of this from the noble Earl—that that paragraph in the Foreword is incorrect, or, as least, incorrectly expresses the agreement between Her Majesty's Government, on the one hand, and the Tanganyika Government and the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, on the other. If the noble Earl will give us that assurance then we shall be quite happy.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I have great pleasure in giving that assurance. The position is as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has explained and understood.
  LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged. I noticed that, in the Annual Report for last year on the Colonial Territories, at page 18, it is stated that encouraging progress continues to be made by the Corporation in its various enterprises. I was very glad indeed to read that note, which was practically the only reference to this Corporation in the Report. I am rather surprised at that, because this is an encouraging activity on the part of the Colonial Office and of the Tanganyika Government, and I am therefore rather surprised that they have not patted themselves on the back more than they have. There is just that brief note that progress is encouraging, which does not in any way, to my mind, sum up the situation as it is. It is not often that we have to chide the Government for not giving us sufficient information about their good works. We often have to chide them in other respects. They should be chided here, because they have done a great deal of good, I think, in Tanganyika, as I shall show in a moment.

  59
  It was always said in the Army that the British Army had the finest manuals in the world, and the least read. I am not sure that that does not apply to Colonial Reports as well. There are a large number of them and one has to do a sort of detective investigation to get out some of these things. I have had to hunt through all sorts of Blue Books to get any reference to the Corporation and what it has done during the preceding year. As I say, it was only a few minutes before the House sat this afternoon that the actual Report of the Corporation, to whom we are about to agree to give £500,000, came into my hands. I am grateful to the noble Earl and to the Leader of the House for enabling me to see it, even at that moment. If I had not seen it then, I should not have seen it at all. But, as this is a very interesting Report and as it is a very important Corporation, I should have thought it might have been better if noble Lords and Members in another place could have had the opportunity of reading and studying this Report at more length. I do not know whether it would be very costly to print it as a White Paper, a Command Paper or a ministerial Paper, but if it were possible, in some way, to enable those of us who are interested in these matters to have this Report so that we can study it, I am sure that it would be well worth the expense involved.
  As the noble Earl has said, the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation took on the land and some of the work which was done by the Overseas Food Corporation in what is familiarly known as the Ground-nuts Scheme. I am glad to say that the Corporation has made steady progress. Its work is summed up in Chapter I of the Report, where it is stated that the Corporation's activities are divided into three parts. The first refers to "The Transferred Undertaking"—that was the undertaking of the Overseas Food Corporation. The second is the "Rufiji Basin Survey Scheme"—a vast area in which the potentialities are being explored by the Corporation. The third is the Ruvu Ranching Scheme, which (if I may adopt a personal note), I myself suggested many years ago. I am pleased to see that that is now being developed by the Corporation.
  The background, as I have said, is the development of the area originally dealt
  60
  with by the Overseas Food Corporation, and then other areas into which they did not enter. The commentary on it can be found in the Report of the East Africa Royal Commission. This is another of those voluminous Reports which are of enormous importance, which take a great deal of trouble, involving years of work, but which, so far as I know, are practically unread in Parliament, unfortunately. This Report is almost a guide book to agricultural and social development in East Africa. I notice on page 327 of the Report this statement:
  "It is interesting to find that much the same results—the excessively heavy burden of capital costs when such schemes are put down in uninhabited bush, and the tendency to switch from full mechanisation with direct employment to a tenancy system—have been reached by the Overseas Food Corporation in Tanganyika. This organisation, whatever its shortcomings in attaining its original objective"—
  and I should like noble Lords who occasionally talk about the undertaking of the Overseas Food Corporation without always realising what its present state is to bear this statement in mind—
  "is still of great value for experiment in this vital subject of the economic posibilities of employing mechanised aid, and if it did not exist, a similar organisation would certainly have to be created. The undertaking has recently been transferred to the new Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, the first objective of which is self-supporting agricultural production on land already held by the Overseas Food Corporation. A second objective is to undertake, participate in. or promote agricultural production and development of other areas in the Territory. The long-term policy is designed in particular to stimulate and assist African farmers to achieve much higher production and standards of living by their own efforts, suitably guided, and augmented by the provision of mechanised cultivation operations which they, as individuals, could not otherwise undertake."
  The Report goes on to describe the sort of pattern of agriculture which is developing in this area, with the Corporation providing agriculturists to supervise the agricultural operations, and providing tractors, mechanical aid and various kinds of credit. In fact, it is the sort of system which for one, have been suggesting, as the noble Earl, Lord Munster, well knows—and we have had debates on this—for many years. I often suggested that some such pattern as that should be evolved. I am particularly pleased to see that this pattern is being evolved in Tanganyika. I cannot understand why the Government have publicised this, unless it is that they are afraid of some of their more extreme

  61
  Back-Benchers and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who would no doubt take them to task at this essay in socialism. Then the Report goes on, at page 328 (paragraph 85):
  "While it is far too early to form any opinion as to the success of these experiments, it would be difficult to overestimate their importance. They bear directly on a main need of East Africa, which is the application of managerial and technical knowledge and of capital in order to modernise the indigenous economy, so that the people are finally left with bosh the trained ability and experience with which to create their own capital for their own future development."
  There is just one further quotation I should like to make from this most valuable and interesting Report, a landmark, if I may say so, in the history of East Africa. It is at page 387, which deals with race relations. The Report says this:
  "By far the greatest part of a new policy"—
  that is to say, how the European settlers can exist side by side with the African farmers—
  "will be concerned, however, with African fanning. Our approach here has usually been associated with a tribal conception which may develop into a local patriotism which should not be discouraged so long as it does not become a vested interest conflicting with territorial needs. Moreover, in the passage from tribal forms of society to a wider modern economy, individuals may feel a sense of being lonely and lost unless an organised form of economy is there to help them. In this respect planned settlement schemes, and the work of such bodies as the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation and of co-operative societies, may fill a very general psychological need. Our meaning is not that Africans are hopeless and need control but that the road forward needs planning. We judge it essential in this planning that the people themselves should feel a sense of participating in its creation and administration, and we think that African local governments should be associated in the selection of pilot areas. Both within the framework of such schemes and outside them, however, it is vital to take cognisance of the emerging African individual and to help him to develop his sense of leadership and initiative. Nothing can be more important in this regard than personal acquaintance and friendship."
  So your Lordships will see that, on the best possible authority—or, at least, what I regard as the best possible authority on East Africa—namely, the Report of the East African Royal Commission, the work of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation has been commended. Therefore, we on this side gladly welcome this Bill; we congratulate those concerned with the Corporation—its general man
  62
  ager, the board and others—on the work they have done, and we wish them every possible success in the future.
  4.1 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, it is very nice to hear the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in respect to the work of this Corporation. Let me first assure him that the present Bill is blessed by both the Government of Tanganyika and by the Corporation itself. In relation to his request about the Corporation's Report, I am sorry that there was a delay in laying the Report in the Printed Paper Office. I will see whether we cannot do what he suggests—that is, have further copies made available in a more convenient form. Lastly, it is also rather nice to be accused of hiding one's light under a bushel, and I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord says for future publicity. Whatever may be the origins of this Corporation, there is general agreement that its present work is excellent and valuable, not only for Tanganyika but for all of Africa.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15). Bill read 3a, and passed.

  DISTURBANCES IN CENTRAL OMAN
  4.2 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will intervene at this stage to make a statement similar to that being made in another place about the further developments in the situation in central Oman. I have received little further information about the situation on the ground, but the military preparations to which I referred yesterday have continued.
  It will perhaps help your Lordships to form a judgment on these matters if I say something about the terrain, conditions and climate of the area in which the disturbances have taken place. The central Oman is a mountainous area, the highest mountains rising to 9,000 feet. It is surrounded by desert where the present

  63
  temperatures are up to 120 degrees. There is no front line but rather a constantly shifting pattern of tribal allegiances and defections with minor armed skirmishes. There is no question, therefore, of large-scale operations by British troops on the ground.
  As I said yesterday, discretion has been given to our local military authorities to take any necessary action on their own initiative within certain limits. So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned this includes leaflet dropping on behalf of the Sultan together with action against certain forts in the area held by dissident tribesmen. These forts, manned by tribesmen equipped with modern arms smuggled in from outside the country, are capable of intimidating, both loyal and wavering tribes. I would emphasise that action has been authorised only against certain military targets. The real issue is not the scale of the military operations but the fact that Her Majesty's Government intend to give full support to the Sultan.
  4.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving us the statement. It seems essential to know a little more, in view of the last part of the statement—namely:
  "The real issue is not the scale of the military operations but the fact that Her Majesty's Government intend to give full support to the Sultan."
  With that I daresay a great many people will have sympathy, but it seems that we ought to ask certain questions of the Government. In the first place, one can understand their desiring to do what they can to assist a friendly Head of a State to maintain his status quo, if they have a Treaty of Friendship. But is it quite certain that this present conflict is engineered from outside his territory? Is this a piece of external aggression in relation to sovereign territory? If that is the Government's view and if they have evidence of it, where does the aggression come from? Is it Saudi Arabia? If the Government have evidence and know that that is so, is it not better to say so?
  If it is Saudi Arabia, I would ask whether, in view of the large interests of the United States in Saudi Arabia and the close relationship that they have recently
  64
  established, and having regard to President Eisenhower's view as to the maintenance of the balance of power in the Middle East, the Government have approached, or intend to approach, the American Government in order that they may use their influence with Saudi Arabia—if it is Saudi Arabia which is behind this aggression—to prevent this conflict from being either continued or allowed to arise again in the future. If, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, in line with a Treaty of Friendship although it is not a military obligation, and having regard to their general relationships with other sheikhs in the area, it is essential to give some support to the maintenance of the status quo of a friendly Power in the manner which they have announced to Parliament, have they notified, or do they intend to notify, the United Nations of the position and of their action?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords. I will try to answer the noble Viscount's questions. As yet we have no proof as to the engineering of this uprising from outside. The only proof that we have is that the rebels have modern arms which they could not have produced themselves; they must have come from outside. But we have no definite proof as to their exact origin as yet.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that statement having been made, I take it that somebody has had a chance to examine portions of the armament. Are they American, or Czech, or Russian? That is rather important.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, unfortunately we have not had the chance to; in fact, that information is not available yet. If I remember aright, we have proof that the arms they have are automatics and mines. We know that they are automatic because they have been heard, but we have not actually captured one yet. We know that they are mines because vehicles have been blown up by them; but we have not captured a mine. These two armaments could not have been manufactured by the rebels themselves. As regards Saudi Arabia, I cannot answer the noble Viscount. As I say, we have not yet any proof as to where this rebellion is engineered from. The United States Government has been kept fully informed—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: As in Suez?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD:—and the State Department, if I remember aright—and if your Lordships have seen the midday papers you will have seen this—gave a Press interview in which the particular statement was made that they were very pleased at the way that they were kept informed. So far no official notification has been made to the United Nations.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is that being considered—whether that should not be done in regard to our proposed entry into an independent State, however good the reasons may be?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I do not think there is any necessity at the moment to go to the United Nations. I will refresh your Lordships' memory as to the statement I made yesterday, which was that we have been asked by the Sultan to go to his aid, and that we had decided to do so in exactly the same way as the Government of the noble Lords opposite went to the same Sultan's aid in 1930. I do not think there is any question of our informing the United Nations. We have merely been asked for help; and help we are giving.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I was well aware of the precedent of 1930, but of course a great many changes have taken place in international organisation, and in the conception of action under international law and the maintenance of international relationships. In view of that, I should have thought some consideration might have been given to the matter.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is quite clear that what has happened is that we have invaded Oman.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: You can invade a country from the air.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I cannot allow the noble Viscount to get away with that remark. We have been invited into Oman by the ruler of the country to go to his aid.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: At the invitation of the ruler we have invaded Oman from the air, and what the noble Earl called "reconnaissance" planes yesterday
  66
  were, in fact, bombing planes. One question I should like to ask on that matter is, how are these bombing planes equipped? I do not mean in detail: but do they have any atomic equipment, for example? Are they the latest type of plane? That is my first question. The second question I want to put is this. Do the Government assert that under international law they have the right, on the invitation of a ruler of an independent country, to send an invading force to put down a rising?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to intervene? If, in fact, as he says, we are taking this sort of action, which he describes as invasion, then we are taking exactly the same view as his Government, when he was Secretary of State for India, took in 1930. We are doing exactly the same. So far as the planes are concerned, they are not bombers at all. Perhaps the noble Lord would wait for further information, which we have not yet got; we may have it in a few days. It may be that this tribal incident will fizzle out.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, as regards 1930. I would point out that there was the Treaty of 1763 and a lot of other things of that kind. I am not attacking this from a Party point of view, or attacking the Conservatve Party as a Party. I am attacking the Government, which does not seem to have heard that there is a United Nations. I ask the question, is this bombing taking place? I understood from the statement that they were bombing forts. Is that true? Has any bombing taken place?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: There is no bombing taking place. My statement, in fact, says,
  "includes leaflet dropping…together with action against certain forts in the area…".
  No bombs are being used.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What are you using on the forts?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Permission has been given to the local military authorities to use aircraft to attack these forts. They will be, in fact, attacked with rockets and machine-gun fire, if they are attacked at all, but they have not yet been attacked.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We are satisfied to know that the invasion of Oman is being carried out by the most modern scientific methods. My second point has not been answered. Do the Government assert that, under international law, on the invitation of a ruler of an independent State they have the right to send armed forces to invade his country?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: We have been invited by the ruler, who is our friend, and we have accepted the invitation, as all friends should do if they are asked by a friend for help.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I will not persist, but it is obvious that I have had no answer to my question. There was a statement made by the Attorney-General in the case of Hungary, saying that this principle did not exist and such action was against international law. I will ask the Leader of the House. Do the Government assert that, apart from treaties, on the invitation of a ruler of an independent State any other State has the right to send arms to his support?
  THE EARL OF HOME: In this particular case, we have decided that we have the right to reply and respond to the invitation of the Sultan, and we have done so. If the noble Viscount wishes to go further into international law, perhaps he would put a Question down.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have asked the question already, and I am not at all surprised, but I am disappointed, to have received no reply.

  PROPOSED NEW PARK LANE HOTEL
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD LORD BLACKFORD rose to call attention to the proposal to erect a hotel of thirty-four storeys in Park Lane, to consider it from the æsthetic and especially from the traffic aspects; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: The glamour of limelight so skilfully directed by experienced producers upon the St. James's Theatre has tended to obscure the proposition mentioned in the Motion which I now beg to move, which will have a far more profound, an infinitely more profound, effect upon the aspect of the Metropolis than the other. I refer
  68
  to the proposal to erect a mammoth hotel, largely financed with American money and constructed with sky-scraping American architecture, in Park Lane next door to Londonderry House.
  I understand that there is a shortage of hotel accommodation in London—indeed, Mr. Wontner, the chairman of the Savoy Hotel Group, appeared on television about a month ago and said that there was a shortage of hotel accommodation for two-thirds of the year, and that in the other third there was plenty of room because it was an off-season. Therefore, I am not against construction of more hotel accommodation, and my regret is that this particular place has been selected for the purpose, and this particular style of architecture. To my mind, there is a much more convenient place where an elegant hotel could be constructed; that is, at the north-west corner of Portman Square, the garden in which Lord Portman's house used to stand—it was bombed in the war—and which is now used as a car park. That is about an acre in extent. It is surrounded by four nicely broad roads, none of which is in the main stream of traffic; indeed, quite little traffic uses them. It is in a very central position, close to Marble Arch Tube, close to the shopping centres and so forth. I should like to see a new hotel put up in that position. But I suppose that the magic words "Park Lane" and "Mayfair" are expected to attract overseas visitors. Therefore, the Park Lane site has been chosen, although, after all, the most popular hotel with overseas visitors is probably the Savoy which, of course, is far from Mayfair.
  In my Motion I have said that I would direct attention especially to the question of traffic congestion, but on reflection I have come to the conclusion that that would be a mistake, and that the æsthetic aspect of the question is very much more important. So, with your Lordships' permission, I will dispose of the traffic point first. There is no need to enlarge upon the troubles of traffic congestion in this city, and I draw attention to it only because it has several times been overlooked in the past. For instance, I suppose that nobody can deny that the congestion of traffic at Marble Arch has been, and still is, greatly increased by the fact that the entrance, both for visitors and luggage, to the Cumberland Hotel

  69
  has not been recessed. Your Lordships will remember also that originally the entrance to Claridge's Hotel was recessed, but a few years ago somebody gave permission to the hotel authorities to take that recessed part into the hotel, with the result that the entrance is now flush with Brook Street; and although Brook Street is a one-way street there is no doubt that, as a result, congestion continually takes place outside Claridge's.
  In the case of the Westbury Hotel, forethought was taken. It has been recessed; and, furthermore, the shops in Band Street have been arcaded, so that no extra traffic congestion has arisen at that extremely bad cross road. But then the Westbury Hotel is only a small one, with some 250 bedrooms, and is not what one may describe as an entertaining hotel. Banquets, balls and functions of that kind are not given there, and the amount of traffic which goes to it is therefore so much the less. This great new hotel, with 700 bedrooms and two floors or banqueting and other entertaining rooms, will attract a very great deal of traffic. It is true that it faces on to a part of Park Lane which is wide. It is also true that provision is to be made for a garage under it for 250 cars, but I do not think that that will deal with the in-and-out traffic of visitors and luggage all day long, nor with the back parts of the hotel. Those back parts abut on Pitts Head Mews, a tiny narrow gangway, Stanhope Row, at the back, which is even narrower, and Hertford Street, to the south, which is by no means a wide street. Moreover, access to this hotel from Curzon Street, which is a very busy thoroughfare, will be through Derby Street, a mere lane; and access from this hotel to Piccadilly will be from down Hamilton Place, which again is a very narrow thoroughfare.
  I hope, therefore. that if planning permission for this hotel is given, special care will be taken by the planning and traffic authorities to consider all these aspects—and I dare say others of which I have not thought—and that the hotel will be suitably recessed, not only in front but also at the sides and back, so that there may be access to it without reducing traffic either to a standstill or to a trickle, as is the case with the tradesmen's part of the Dorchester Hotel which, again, has not been recessed. The traffic
  70
  in Tilney Street is always a mere single-car traffic which is often brought to a standstill.
  Let us now turn to the æsthetic aspect of this question. There is no intelligent citizen of this country, or indeed of the Commonwealth, who has not a great affection and admiration for St. Paul's Cathedral. The height of the Cathedral to the top of the cross is 365 feet, and we all know the graceful way in which the Cathedral tapers, through its columns and dome and the structure above, to the cross at the top—it is a pride to all of us. The structure which we are now considering will not be anything like that. It will be 13 feet higher—378 feet—and it will be a solid column, 216 feet wide, with no redeeming feature whatever. It will face Hyde Park, a mass of windows by day and, I suppose, a torch of light by night. These two structures will have an overpowering effect on all central London. They will be visible from every vantage point to all the citizens—to the east, a lovely structure symbolising Almighty God, and to the west, a massive structure symbolising the almighty dollar. I do not know whether that will be a pleasing prospect for the citizens. Personally I am very sorry to think that this may happen.
  Is this not an opportunity to consider the general skyline of London? Your Lordships will remember that when Bucklersbury House was planned, there was a debate in your Lordships' House on that subject, and a great many speakers were against the proposal. None the less, the building has taken place, and Bucklersbury House is nearing completion. That building is a mere 186 feet high, yet I submit that those of us who go to the City every day cannot admire it. It has an overpowering effect on that part of the City and it bids fair to be, when finished, an ugly, unattractive building overshadowing such buildings as the Mansion House and the charming little Church of St. Stephen Walbrook.
  I would invite comparison between that building and the one immediately opposite to it, which has been put up by the Bank of London and South America. I should imagine that that building is about 110 feet high. It is a delightful building which reflects great credit upon those who have raised it. I have an idea that the name of the architect is Boynton, but

  71
  whoever he is, it is a type of architecture which, I submit, is ideal for this City of London of ours; and I deplore the idea that our city should be Americanised. That seems to me quite unnecessary. We know quite well why the buildings on Manhattan Island have been made to climb to the skies. The highest, I believe, is now something like 1,000 feet, but that is due to cramped space. We are not so cramped in this city that we need to copy them to that extent. It may be said that 378 feet is not so overpowering a height, but in fact it is three times the height of Grosvenor House and three times the height of the Dorchester, both of which are 110 feet high.
  There is another aspect of this point—that is, in connection with our parks. We are well and happily supplied with parks, both in London and outside it. There was an interesting discussion on television last night between Sir William Holford and a Mr. Summerson, who is Curator of the Soane Museum. They were talking about the possible, even probable, destruction in a few years' time of the Nash terraces in Regent's Park, which of course they deplored, and we should all deplore. Both these eminent gentlemen agreed that to maintain and reconstruct the Nash terraces would cost a colossal sum of money, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that both of them agreed that the taxpayer ought to find the money—in spite of the fact that, in all probability, 95 per cent. of the taxpayers have never heard of the Nash terraces.
  However, we are not discussing the Nash terraces now. I am concerned with only one remark of Sir William Holford, when he said, in effect: "You get into the middle of Regent's Park and you see only trees—perhaps there may be an occasional cornice of the terraces peeping through the trees. You get the illusion that you are out in the quiet of the country. That is one of the great charms of our parks, and we should be very jealous to safeguard it". My Lords, I say that that applies to Hyde Park. If you get into the middle of Hyde Park you are surrounded by lovely trees; you have no idea of buildings. There may be an occasional peep of a tower of Knightsbridge Barracks or something like that; but, on the whole, you feel that you are in the country and relieved from the pres
  72
  sure of buildings. If you allow this massive pylon to be erected in Park Lane you will never get away from it; its overpowering impression will be with you wherever you go in Hyde Park or the Green Park, or, for that matter, anywhere in Mayfair.
  If your Lordships doubt that, I would strongly urge any one of you who has any spare time to go to Richmond Park and drive from Richmond Gate to Roehampton Gate, because on Roehampton Hill there have been erected a large number of flats, hideously ugly flats, some nine, ten or twelve (I cannot remember exactly how many) storeys in height. They rise above the trees overlooking Richmond Park, and I guarantee that any of your Lordships who does what I have suggested will agree with me that the aspect from Richmond Park to the east has been utterly ruined. They may be very nice flats—indeed, I am sure they are very nice for the people who live in them. I should like to have one myself. The view over Richmond Park, which is our most beautiful park, is, of course, delightful. But from the point of view of citizens who use Richmond Park, the amenities of that place have, in my opinion, been very considerably spoilt by the new accession in the shape of these flats. I am anxious to avoid the same thing happening in Hyde Park with this gigantic new erection. I hope that planning permission for it will not be given. I hope that the people who are interested in the venture will not attempt to proceed with it, but will seek to attain their ends by the erection of a hotel of large proportions, though not of overpowering proportions, in Portman Square. I shall look forward to hearing what the Minister may have to say. Possibly he may have something reassuring to tell me on those lines. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
  4.35 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rather gather from the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that he is opposed to the construction of any skyscrapers in London. I am afraid that, while I agree with his sentiments about this particular skyscraper in Park Lane, I cannot agree with him about the general aspect. I think many people are coming round to the point of view that London has soon to come to terms with the architecture

  73
  of the 20th century, both æsthetically and also economically, as land becomes more and more expensive. The London County Council, I believe, have open minds about this question, although they have said that they prefer the tower type of skyscraper to the slab type. In an interesting article on skyscrapers in The Times to-day the writer stated:
  "Many who are prepared to see London face the challenge of the skyscraper console themselves with a mental picture of slender glassy towers rising gracefully into the sky. But they will find in practice that all their towers are slabs, which look slender enough end-on, but from any other aspect become enormous cliffs blotting out the sky and over-shadowing their neighbours."
  While I myself do not oppose skyscrapers for themselves, I think the siting is extremely important. For instance, I think there can be no objection to placing a very tall building on the South Bank. Indeed, I believe that plans have already been passed for the Shell Company offices to be built on the South Bank. These will be 340 feet in height—not quite as high as the proposed hotel in Park Lane, but nearly as high as St. Paul's, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, pointed out, is 365 feet in height.
  But I do not think one can really argue fairly that because St. Paul's is of a certain height—365 feet—no building in the whole of the metropolitan area of London (which is really very large) should attain to that height; because surely the only buildings which affect St. Paul's are buildings which are fairly close to it or can be seen on the skyline or along the sweep of the river. I cannot see that one could object to those flats overlooking Richmond Park (to which the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, referred for other reasons) in connection with St. Paul's, for they are at a very considerable distance away from the Cathedral. The Shell Company office buildings on the South Bank will be part of a group of buildings which will mostly be 100 feet in height and this particular building will rise like a campanile in the middle. I think the whole should make an impressive group. I believe all visitors to Moscow would agree that the skyscrapers that are being built there are a very impressive part of the city.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: There are only two. One of them is the university and the other is on the other side
  74
  of the city. I have never seen any other.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, but when I was in Moscow there were three skyscrapers. The third may perhaps have been built since the time of his visit. The point I was trying to make was that these skyscrapers are situated at strategic points round the city and are very impressive. For that reason I think that the whole policy of skyscrapers in London needs investigating, and I am glad to see that the Civic Trust are proposing to carry out an investigation of this kind. For instance, I think skyscrapers would make quite an impressive skyline along the river.
  Coming to the particular hotel which it is proposed to build in Park Lane, we find that it is to be 390 feet in height; that is to say, it will be taller than any other building at present planned in London. On the other hand, one understands that it will provide accommodation for 1,200 people and for 250 cars. There is a very urgent need for hotel accommodation in London. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, mentioned a Portman Square site. I believe that plans were put forward to build a hotel on that particular site, but is was found that it could be economically viable only if it was a very tall building, and it was then found that it would overshadow the squares adjacent to it. I believe the promoters were asked to make it much lower but found that they were not able to do so, and the whole scheme was withdrawn for that reason. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that this site off Portman Square would be a much better site.
  Also, the South Bank would be an excellent site for an hotel of this kind, but the difficulty is, I believe, that our visitors from abroad, particularly from the United States, prefer to stay in the West End of London. I am sure that the noble Lord, as a business man, would agree with me that it is necessary to give the customer what he wants. I think that this is one of the difficulties confronting any promoter of hotel accommodation in London. The places where the authorities would like hotels to be built are not the places where visitors would like to go. The places where a promoter would like to build his hotel are usually so expensive and the land

  75
  so valuable that it is necessary to build very high in order to make it an economic proposition. That is just one of the problems we have to face.
  Of course, an hotel of this kind would be of tremendous advantage as a dollar earner. I believe that it would bring in 30 million dollars a year, which is a very considerable sum. On the other hand, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, that the site at the end of Park Lane is not the best place for it. It may be argued that Park Lane is such a mess architecturally in any case that another addition to it would not matter very much. I think it is one of the greatest tragedies of our time that this fine street facing the park should have been pulled down piecemeal when the houses had to be put on the market, instead of being planned in a proper way. It could have been one of the finest streets in London; but that is what happened.
  I agree that the site is not very interesting architecturally. I have a certain affection for the Venetian palazzo there, though perhaps in some ways it is not so interesting or exciting as the late Barney Barnato's Venetian palace up the street; but it is not without interest. Yet I cannot say that it is sufficiently important architecturally to be retained. I think that the most important aspect of the whole scheme will be its effect on other buildings. We must remember that these very tall buildings cast great shadows over the surrounding areas, and in this case it would cast them over the trees, the grass and the flowers of the Park. As has been pointed out, it would have an effect on the people using the amenities of the Park. With buildings overtopping the trees, there would be a feeling of being boxed in.
  I noted that in to-day's Times, the Town Planning Committee of Westminster City Council, have stated that they do not object, in principle, to this scheme, provided it is subject to certain modifications regarding the overall density. Of course, the final decision will rest with the London County Council; but I should be very interested to hear the Government's view.
  4.43 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, may I speak on the Motion moved by
  76
  my noble friend Lord Blackford? My noble friend did not mention that in this hotel there is to be an entrance which is off Park Lane altogether. As regards the æsthetic point of view, my family built Dorchester House, and it was very comfortable. I think that this new hotel is essential to provide London with more hotel accommodation. If we do not construct it at some height, we shall not obtain the necessary accommodation, because we must have an hotel of at least 600 rooms in order to make it pay. Providing it can be planned so as not to lose money, there is nothing against the proposition.
  I disagree with my noble friend Lord Blackford about the architectural beauty of tall buildings. I do not see why a tall building cannot be made beautiful. I have been in New York, and from what I have seen there, I would say that it could easily be done. The idea in this new hotel is that, if they could get over the "ancient lights" problem, they would put two wings on the top of the building, and they could then make the building as a whole a little lower. It is proposed to go down about forty feet under ground level for a car park, and they are to have an entrance through the middle of the hotel. In the base of the hotel, which will be only 45 feet high, there are to be the reception rooms and restaurant. Then the building will rise up in a new shape, so that most of the rooms will be overlooking Hyde Park. That will be a great attraction to visitors. I think that it is essential that London should have a new hotel. We have not had a properly built hotel put up in London for many years. I have been associated with the Ritz-Carlton Company and they are a good company, for whom I have a great respect. I think that this hotel should be built, and if anybody can find a better site, I am sure that it would be carefully considered, though I do not think that Portman Square would be a good one.
  4.47 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, having been chairman of the first Town Planning Committee of the London County Council for a period of five years, with only one division in those five years—and it was done on Party lines—I should like to support every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. He knows what

  77
  he is talking about, and I realise that what he has said is true. I think that we should all be careful in seeing that this new hotel is placed on the best possible site.
  4.48 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this proposal to put up an hotel in Park Lane is at the moment still under consideration by the London County Council. I understand that it was on their agenda yesterday for discussion, but for some reason convenient to that authority it was taken off the agenda and postponed to a date of which, so far, I have not been notified. If and when the matter comes before my right honourable friend the Minister, it will come in one of two ways. Either it will come in the form of an appeal, if permission has been refused by the London County Council; or the Minister may, if what I am told is right, call it in before any decision is made by the London County Council and make the final decision himself. Therefore your Lordships will see that I am not at the moment in a position to give any real indication of the Government's views. I do know, however, that as this is a subject of such wide interest to so many people, the Minister is taking a close personal interest in the matter and has asked the London County Council to inform him of any provisional decision they may make. I can also assure your Lordships that everything that has been said in this debate will be carefully noted by my right honourable friend the Minister, and he will, I understand, have a public inquiry before any final decision is made.
  Having told your Lordships that we cannot at this stage say whether the plan will be approved or not, I would go on to add that the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford—whether or not it is right to have a building of this sort on that particular site; the car parking arrangements; whether the traffic arrangements will be adequate and whether the hotel's design will offend
  78
  artistic feelings—will be very much part and parcel of the deliberations which will take place before a decision is taken to grant or refuse planning permission.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, went rather wider and talked of skycrapers as a whole. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the fact that it is thought in certain quarters of the House that skycrapers might be of use in some places in planning hotels and flats in London, bearing in mind the increased accommodation that will be required. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, satisfactorily, and I will keep him informed of any further information that I have.
  4.52 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his helpful remarks, and I am interested to hear that the London County Council will discuss this matter to-morrow. I am grateful to other noble Lords who have shown their interest by making observations in the debate. I hope that our combined efforts may have some influence upon the London County Council, but even if they are not satisfactory, from our point of view, there is, as the noble Earl has said, a final appeal to the Minister. I am grateful to your Lordships for your attendance, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at seven minutes before five o'clock.