Lords Sitting of 17 June 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Duke of St. Albans—Took the Oath.

THE LATE EARL FORTESCUE
2.36 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I believe the House would like to know that my noble friend Lord Onslow, who particularly wished to be associated with what I have to say this afternoon about the late Lord Fortescue, has gone to Lord Fortescue's funeral. In consultation with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, the Leader of the Liberal Party, I have arranged that a wreath shall be sent from the whole of the House to Lord Fortescue's funeral.
The roots of Lord Fortescue's family go deep into the history of England, and it is significant that when I recall "Tim" Fortescue's life and my association with him the first quality in him which springs to my mind is loyalty, and perhaps that is the greatest of all the human virtues. There was his loyalty to his wife, who was his beloved partner and gay companion, and made, with him, a wonderful home—indeed, it was the long drawn out sorrow of her illness and death which penetrated even his fortitude, and really left him with no will to live. Loyalty to his County of Devonshire, to which he would return, whenever his duties allowed, with all the countryman's excitement and satisfaction in Nature and in the land, in his farming and his forestry, in which he was so expert; back to the country sports and pursuits in which he delighted in the rare times which he had free for recreation. Loyalty, too, to the West Country, where he was, of course, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Devon and a member of the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall, where he had commitments with the Royal Agricultural Society and where he and Lady Fortescue
980
were ready to serve a multitude of local causes. There they will be remembered with particularly deep affection because there were few activities which they did not inspire with their interest and enliven with their presence; and they were both vivid personalities. Loyalty to his regiment, to his country and to his Queen—and, we know, to this House in which he served many what I like to think were to him happy years.
He used rather to laugh at himself as a politician and a Parliamentarian and wonder how he drifted into politics. Perhaps it is true that this debonair, brave, direct cavalry soldier, rather slow to collect his thoughts and slow to express them, perhaps was not on the face of it of the stuff of which conventional politicians are made. But for twenty-one years he pursued his duties here with punctuality and with acceptance to everybody, as Whip and as Chief Whip, and gave to this House unstinted devotion. In doing so he gained the affection of everybody and had a success which was a personal triumph; and he achieved that triumph by methods peculiarly his own.
I remember that once during a debate in this House, when the House was in a somewhat "edgy" mood, a late Sitting was required. I told "Tim" Fortescue that I hoped he would go into the House and explain the necessity for this late Sitting, and I said I had no doubt that he would use his whole tact in persuading your Lordships to sit late. I happened to be in the House when he made his announcement. It went like this: "My Lords, I have an announcement to make. Your Lordships will not like it. You have to sit after dinner." After that, of course, the whole House would cheerfully have sat until early the following morning if need be. We all have a thousand memories of his humour and good temper and his kindness. Here was a man whose character was pure gold; and when we find such a person perhaps the simplest words are most faithful to his memory. I can only say that none of us could ever have known a nicer man or a more loyal friend.
2.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I rise to associate my friends and myself with the tribute which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has paid to the memory of Lord Fortescue. In Lord Fortescue—or

981
"Tim" as we all knew him—the whole House has lost a friend. It is not the case that we are paying a tribute to an official of one Party for we on this side all looked upon him as belonging to us as well as to noble Lords opposite. My noble friend and Leader yesterday used the term "imperturbable" and I feel that that is probably as good a description of Lord Fortescue's character, together with the loyalty of which the noble Earl spoke, as one could find. I have myself never known him to be put out, even though there must have been times when it would have been perhaps justifiable for him to be excited or upset by the conduct of certain people who shall be nameless. I have never known him lose his temper or even be put out in the slightest, degree.
He was invariably kind and courteous and, rather strange for one who had been a military man, gentle. He was a person to whom one could go to talk about one's difficulties, and he would always give a sympathetic ear. My own personal memory of him—and we all have special memories—is of repeated conversations about pigs. He was tremendously interested in my pig-keeping, as I was in his, and we were frequently exchanging views on the subject, on which he held some very good ideas. We shall mourn his loss. It seems hardly credible that he is no longer with us. His memory will remain for a long time with all of us in this House; and we deeply mourn his passing.
2.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I, as a former Leader of the House, re-echo all that has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Home and Lord Silkin, about Lord Fortescue. I do not suppose there is anyone in this House to whom the news of Lord Fortescue's death has not come with a sense of severe shock. It was only a few days ago that he was here in this Chamber, his own quiet, unobtrusive self, a part—one might almost, I think, say an essential part—of our lives. And now that he has left us it seems almost impossible to believe that he is not here still, so great a place had he carved for himself in all our hearts.
It was my good fortune to work with him from the time he became Chief Whip of the Conservative Party in this House
982
until my retirement from the Leadership last year, and I do not think I ever remember a happier relationship, at any rate on my part. I hardly knew him when he took over; but soon came to appreciate his rare qualities. Humble he was—I do not think there ever was a humbler man; but his counsel was always wise and he had an unerring instinct about men. That, and his complete integrity and, as the Leader of the House has said, loyalty combined with a natural goodness and kindness, were, I think, the secret of his remarkable success as Chief Whip. He liked everybody and everybody liked him: and so he came to have, to a marked degree, if I may use the phrase in this context, the confidence of the House.
He was, of course, as has been said, pre-eminently a countryman, with that robust common sense which is the hallmark of the true countryman; and it was in the countryside, and especially in his own County of Devon, that he was happiest. It was the occupations of the countryside, and in particular the care of his own estate, that gave him, I think, the keenest pleasure. Indeed, if one had to find one single word which would accurately describe him, I think that that word would be "Squire"—and in its best sense that is a pretty good word.
Such, my Lords, was "Tim" Fortescue, whom we have lost. We cannot, I think, in one sense, wish him to have lived longer, for without his wife, to whom he was so deeply devoted, life could have held little for him. But we are all the poorer for his death, and I am very glad that there has been this opportunity to-day to record our respect and deep affection for one who, as Lord Silkin has said, was a friend to us all and to whom the House, and much more than the House, owe so much.
2.48 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I make no apology for entering into these tributes. As the first Chief Whip of the former Labour Government, I succeeded Earl Fortescue. I want only to be allowed to say how much I was indebted to him both for helping me to feel at home and for showing me all the ropes. He became a close personal friend. It is more than four years since I have been able to raise my voice in this House, but I thought that I had to get here

983
somehow to-day to pay my respects and gratitude to Lord Fortescue.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I should like to rise to express my opinion in the same way. I have known Hugh Fortescue, I think, longer than any of you—since he was 13. I was a great friend of both Lord Fortescue and his wife, who in my County of Devon could not have done more. They worked hard together, and I could not conceive his living without his wife.
2.49 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that to anybody of my generation in this House it will be very difficult to imagine the Front Bench opposite without Lord Fortescue, because he used to sit there, I think, for longer than many of us care to remember. I remember twenty years ago my father telling me how helpful, kind and courteous he always found Lord Fortescue, although their views must have been poles apart. When I myself came to your Lordships' House I also experienced a great deal of his kindness and courtesy. I think one of the great qualities of Lord Fortescue was the fact that he never bore personal rancour, although he could not have agreed with many of the views expressed from this side of the House. Yet in all one's dealings with him one found underneath what I might perhaps describe as superficially the somewhat gruff manner was the merry twinkle of the eyes which betrayed the inner kindliness and innate goodness of the man. I think that on this side of the House he will be greatly missed.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
TEES VALLEY WATER BILL
Read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARCHBISHOP MAKARIOS
2.52 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in regard to the Archbishop of Canterbury's invitation to Archbishop Makarios to attend the Lambeth Conference on June 27, and in view of the past and present activities of Archbishop Makarios and the distress caused by this invitation to many of our people who are mourning relatives murdered in Cyprus, they will consider taking steps to prevent his admission to this country.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, Archbishop Makarios enjoys the normal rights of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Her Majesty's Government therefore have no power to exclude Archbishop Makarios from this country. The decision whether to invite him to this country for the Lambeth Conference was a matter for the ecclesiastical authorities, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was so informed.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, in view of the statement which I understand the noble Earl the Leader of the House is to make later this afternoon, I do not propose to ask any supplementary questions at this stage, but the House will no doubt wish to consider most carefully what has been said in the Government reply.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I think that everybody wishes to make it possible for us to get a favourable outcome to the Cyprus question, and therefore it is a help to me not to have to answer questions simply "off the cuff".
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, whether Archbishop Makarios is a British subject, whether he has been issued with a British passport, and whether it was with the aid of this British passport that he recently visited Egypt.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, Archbishop Makarios, as a native of Cyprus, is a British subject and is the holder of a British passport. So far as is known, it was valid at the time of his visit to Egypt; it is not known whether he used it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, for the reason which has already been given by my noble friend Lord Teviot, I do not propose to ask any supplementary questions at the present stage, but I think that it is only right that your Lordships should be aware of the full facts regarding the Archbishop.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I hope to make a statement about half past three, or soon after.

OPENCAST COAL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be considered in order to its being suspended until the Summer Recess for the purpose of giving to Orders relating to Public Bills the same precedence on Mondays as they have on Tuesdays and Thursdays.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds, who is prevented from being in his place by a family bereavement, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

MARRIAGE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DEFENCE CONTRACTS BILL
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this Bill is concerned, first, with the Government's powers to use, or to authorise the use of, privately owned patented inventions and registered designs. It is concerned secondly, and chiefly, with the Government's power to authorise the use of privately owned technical information. The Bill also revokes the existing emergency powers in these two fields—a matter upon which your Lordships have been frequently exercised. In substitution, the Bill adds very slightly to the Government's existing permanent powers in connection with the use of patented inventions and registered designs for defence purposes. It also provides a new permanent power, more limited than the existing emergency power and subject to safeguards, to facilitate the use of technical information in defence contracts.
Your Lordships may, and I suspect probably will, recall that this is not the first occasion upon which the House has debated these matters. In December, 1953, the House considered the Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill. But, in view of the criticism and doubt expressed on both sides of the House on that occasion, the Government withdrew the Bill. Since then the Government have carefully reviewed their needs for permanent powers in this field, in the light of experience in recent years. On the defence side the position is no longer overshadowed (as it was, of course, in 1953) by the Korean war. What is more, events have underlined the importance to our economic progress of avoiding any discouragement to the exchange of technical information at home or its flow from abroad. Both these developments have had some influence on the present Bill.

987
One of the main criticisms of the 1953 Bill was that it enabled the Government to require the disclosure, either to a Government Department or to a third party, of confidential industrial technical information required in connection with defence contracts—that is, the Bill sought to put the Defence Regulations on a permanent basis. In point of fact, those emergency powers have not been much used. The Government decided, therefore, not only that they would not seek permanent powers of this kind, but also that the emergency power was no longer justifiable or necessary. The regulation in question was revoked in 1954, and the present Bill does not provide for the disclosure of technical information: indeed, it specifically states that such powers are not held.
In the course of the debate in 1953 some of your Lordships emphasised the important contribution which the confidential exchange of technical information makes to industrial progress. Your Lordships suggested that there should be much closer consultation with industry before we took any final decision on the Bill. The Government have now had full consultations with industry and have received a report from an independent Committee of Inquiry about the Government's powers to authorise the use of technical information for defence purposes. The Government are grateful to Sir Harold Howitt and his two colleagues for their report. The Committee considered that the Government should have powers to authorise, subject to safeguards, the use by a manufacturer of technical information in defence contracts overriding any restrictions or conditions which might be placed on the use of that information by his commercial agreements.
The Committee, however, went on to suggest provisions designed to ensure that the power would not be abused by any Government and to give assurance to the owners of technical information, both here and abroad, that their rights and interests would be adequately safeguarded. All the Committee's main proposals are implemented in this Bill, as well as one or two others subsequently suggested by the representatives of industry. The Government believe that industry regards the present Bill as im-
988
plementing the spirit of the Committee's recommendations. I should like to return to the recommendations of the Committee when I come to deal with Clauses 2 to 4 of this Bill.
Before I do so, I must refer to Clause 1. This clause is concerned with patented inventions and registered designs. In what follows anything I say about patented inventions and the Patents Act applies in substance to registered designs and the Registered Designs Act. The Patents Act, 1949—Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Act—includes both permanent powers and powers which can be exercised in an emergency. The permanent powers enable the Government to use, or to authorise the use of, patented inventions for (to use the expression in the Bill) the "services of the Crown". In addition, the Act provides for the Government to exercise similar powers during a period of emergency for a wide variety of other purposes set out in Section 49 of the Patents Act. The present Bill provides in Clause 7 for the termination of the emergency so far as the 1949 Acts are concerned, and thus, until there is an Order in Council prescribing a further period of emergency, the Government will be left with only the permanent powers of the 1949 Acts by which such inventions can be used for the "services of the Crown".
The Government wish to increase the powers given by the Patents Act only in two minor respects, where the present provisions are not enough for modern conditions. The Patents Act does not cover the case of what is, in the current N.A.T.O. jargon, known as an "offshore purchase"—that is, where the purchase is to be made by one Ally for the defence of another—or the case in which the supply is to be made to armed forces acting under the authority of the United Nations. This Bill amends the Patents Act to provide for these two cases. It has, however, been suggested in previous discussion, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, that these powers should be conditional on reciprocal action by other Governments. We considered this point carefully, but the Government do not regard this suggestion as either appropriate or desirable. We have not experienced difficulty in purchasing defence materials abroad because of the absence of precisely similar legislation in the supplying

989
country. If a condition of reciprocity were attached to the exercise of the powers in the two cases covered by this Bill, the most likely effect would be that orders for off-shore purchases would go to other countries and that we should not be able to supply equipment to forces acting under the authority of the United Nations. Logically, indeed, I think such a condition would have to be applied to any exercise of the powers under the 1949 Acts for supply to overseas Governments. The practical effect would be to encourage our Commonwealth and other friends to obtain their requirements elsewhere, because of the difficulty of defining what reciprocal treatment involves. This would be to the detriment of our export trade, and I can see no good reason for making such amendments either to the 1949 Acts or to the present Bill.
I should like to draw attention at this point to another of the main differences between this Bill and the 1953 Bill. When preparing the 1953 Bill, the Government considered the desirability of removing any doubt about whether certain borderline cases were "services of the Crown" for Which the use of patented inventions might be authorised under the Patents Act. The doubts arose because certain goods, although obtained and owned by the Crown, might be issued to the public or passed on to a local authority. Your Lordships may recall the specific cases of deaf aids, artificial limbs, civilian gas masks and fire service communication equipment.
Since 1953, the Government have carefully examined whether special provisions to cover these cases are really necessary and whether it is desirable to include them in this Bill. We have reached the considered view that they should not be specifically covered, after all—and for two main reasons. On the one hand, we have come to the conclusion that no harm is likely to be done, in practice, if such provisions are not included in the present Bill. On the other hand, experience has shown that, if they are included, there is a serious risk of misunderstanding, particularly overseas, as to the purpose and scope of the Bill, which would be likely to do harm to our national interests. In the Government's view, all these supplies, except certain fire service communication equipment, about which I shall have a word to say later, are in fact required for the "services of the Crown", and the
990
use of patented inventions and registered designs in their manufacture is therefore currently being authorised under the existing permanent powers. The need for special provisons would accordingly arise only if the matter came before the counts and the courts decided that the Government's view was not correct in a particular case. If that occurred it would still not mean that the use of patented inventions and registered designs for those supplies would be prevented or subjected to unreasonable royalty payments. The 1949 Acts already provide for compulsory licensing, on, of course, reasonable terms.
If difficulty arose as to the use of patented inventions or registered designs for these purposes the Government could, and would, take immediate steps to deal with the situation, and, if they thought it necessary, would introduce legislation to deal with the particular problem which had arisen. They do not, however, consider it necessary or appropriate to include the provisions suggested in 1953 in the present Bill, which is concerned with the use in defence contracts of patented inventions, registered designs and, more particularly, technical information. There would indeed be a real risk of misunderstanding, especially among owners of technical information abroad, whom we do not wish to discourage from passing their knowledge on to British manufacturers, if this Bill, which takes certain powers to require that information to be used in defence contracts, also covered what might appear to be new powers as regards civil contracts.
In the case of fire service communication equipment not required for civil defence, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be proper, just because it is ordered centrally, as a matter of convenience, to extend the term "services of the Crown" to cover goods which are required by local authorities to carry out duties laid by Statute not on the Crown but on those authorities. The use of certain of the compulsory licensing powers in the Patents Act would be considered if there were any difficulty about the use of patented inventions in this equipment.
My Lords, I now pass to Clause 2. Subsection (1) gives the Government power to authorise the use; of technical information in defence contracts, notwithstanding the restrictions on its use

991
imposed by its owner, by the manufacturer who is negotiating with the Government for a defence contract. The manufacturer, your Lordships will appreciate, already has the information. The Government have no need for powers to require the disclosure of the information to a Department since the information is, by definition, part of the production process for which the manufacturer is responsible. These two factors mean that the Bill does not contain the same element of compulsion as the 1953 Bill and there is, therefore, no need for penalties.
The Howitt Committee considered that the Government should have the power provided by this subsection, but considered that safeguards were necessary. They suggested both limitation of the field in which the power should operate and also certain obligations which the Government should undertake when exercising the powers. First, the Committee suggested that owners of technical information, here and abroad, should be reassured by a specific declaration that powers to require disclosures were not being taken. This is done in subsection (6) of Clause 2. The Committee also considered that the defence requirements for the production of which the power might be exercised should be strictly defined. This recommendation is fully implemented by the definition of "defence materials" in Clause 6 which governs the field in which the powers may be exercised. Indeed, by providing that the defence materials must be designed or adapted for the armed forces or for civil defence purposes, as well as required by the forces or for civil defence, the Bill gives a real basis for appeal to the High Court when an interested party considers that an authorisation is ultra vires as regards the goods covered.
The Committee recommended that the manufacturer should be allowed three months in which to negotiate with the person who licensed him to use the technical information, in the hope that they would be able to agree on arrangements acceptable to all parties for the use of that information in the production of the defence materials. This is provided for in subsection (1) of Clause 3. The Crown must also, the Committee proposed, notify any person likely to be affected
992
if the negotiations failed and an authorisation was issued, so that any of these people could make a claim for compensation. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 covers this point. The Committee considered that, as in the 1953 Bill, there should be provision for compensation and for appeal to the courts about it by anyone dissatisfied. This matter is covered by Clause 4.
There are, in fact, only two suggestions on procedure on which we have not followed the Committee. The Committee suggested that the decision as to whether assessors should sit with the court should be taken by the parties. In the Government's view, however, that is a matter which must be left to the court itself. Again, the Committee proposed that the Minister, or the permanent head of the Department, should certify that he personally had considered each particular case when an authorisation is issued. We do not think that the exercise of the powers should be limited by Statute to a Minister personally, or that it would be right, in a matter of this kind, to single out one class of official from another. I am anxious, however, that there should be no misunderstanding as to the importance we attach to the views which have been expressed to us on this matter. I can give your Lordships an assurance that in normal times the decision to issue an authorisation will, in fact, he made by the Minister personally. I want to stress this point, so that any fear that authorisations might be issued without proper consideration will be removed.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to draw attention to one other respect in which this Bill differs from the 1953 Bill. In 1953 we sought permanent powers for all Departments to authorise the use of technical information for services of the Crown "generally and not just defence purposes. The Government have now decided that this went too far. This is partly because the owner of technical information, unlike the owner of a patented invention, seeks no privilege from the Crown, and any powers to make use of his property must be justified specially; and partly because the powers have not, in fact, been needed outside the defence field. By limiting the powers to defence the Government recognise the need to

993
encourage the exchange of technical information in industry and its flow from overseas.
Indeed, we have looked at all the questions raised by this Bill in that light and I believe that the Bill does avoid both extremes. On the one hand, it provides permanent powers which the Government really need to ensure the use of all our inventive resources for defence purposes. On the other, it avoids taking powers just in case they might be useful. Your Lordships will probably agree that this would be likely to discourage the investment of industrial resources in research and the exchange of information within industry, which is vital to our industrial progress and economic prosperity.
Thanks to the suggestions made by your Lordships, to the advice of the Howitt Committee, to the willingness of industry to recognise the genuine needs of the Government for defence purposes and to the willingness of Parliament to renew the emergency powers until the matter was fully examined, I think that this Bill is not only a better Bill than its predecessor but provides the best solution of the complicated problems with which it deals.
The taunt is frequently heard that some Ministers seldom stay long enough in one job to learn more than the bare bones of their duties. This, however, has one great advantage: that if the Government have second thoughts about a problem, the Minister explaining the change can tacitly shift some of the odium there may be on to the vanishing shoulders of his predecessor in title. No such defence is, alas! open to me. For nearly six years now I have had the honour to be the spokesman in your Lordships' House for the Board of Trade and it was indeed (as your Lordships may by now have realised) who was responsible for presenting the Bill of 1953 to your Lordships for a Second Reading. Amongst the deaf aids and artificial limbs, the civilian gas-masks and fire service communication equipment, your Lordships may therefore have caught a fleeting glimpse of humble pie. I can only plead, in mitigation, that I have succeeded in making a speech of nearly twenty minutes upon patents, registered designs and technical information without once using the word "know-how". I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it falls to me to say a word on this Bill, as it did four and a half years ago. On that occasion we were confronted with a Bill which was strongly condemned from all sides of the House. The Government, through the instrumentation of the noble Lord, were wise enough to take that Bill back, and I must confess that I thought it had gone for ever. But here it is again, after all this time, and undoubtedly the Government have had ample opportunity for reconsidering the matter. And that they have done. They now present a Bill which, so far as I can see, is unobjectionable in principle. Admittedly, it overrides private rights—though with provision for compensation—but, if the noble Lord was right in his explanation, it does so only for the purpose of defence, and does not go beyond the requirements of defence. If that is so, and if proper compensation is paid and justice is done to those who are deprived of their legal contractual rights, then I feel that there is nothing more that could be said, because after all the interests of defence must predominate even over the rights of private individuals. So I would say to the House that, so far as the general principle of this Bill is concerned, we on this side are prepared to support it. As the noble Lord explained, it is a very complicated Bill which will require detailed examination, and if there are any points that require to be raised at a later stage that will of course be done. At this stage I think the least said about the Bill the better. It can go forward in principle, though we may have something to say at a later stage.
3.20 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I wish to congratulate Her Majesty's Government most heartily on this Bill. It enshrines a major principle which as yet, has not been alluded to by any Government spokesman. I listened with interest to my noble friend's speech on Second Reading; I have read the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in another place, and I have looked at the Explanatory Memorandum, and they all seem to have avoided saying anything about this major question of principle. I think that your Lordships ought to know something about it.

995
It is my daily task, as a member of the Patent Bar, to advise clients on the meaning and effect of the Patents Act, 1949. Ever since that Act has been passed there have been two sections which have been particularly repellent to me; the first is Section 49, and the second is a portion of Section 18. This Bill will completely sterilise Section 49 and make it, at least temporarily, of no effect. My noble friend has said that it can be resuscitated. I rather doubt that. I would much rather that it was taken off the Statute Book.
Section 46 of the Patents Act, which deals with the normal authorisation for Crown use of patented inventions, uses the words
"make, use and exercise"
only. Section 49, which this Bill sterilises, uses the words
"make, use, exercise and vend"—
that is, sell—
"for any purpose which appears to the department necessary or expedient".
There are a number of different purposes, of which these are some:

"(d) for promoting the productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture;

(e) for fostering and directing exports and reducing imports, or imports of any classes, from all or any countries and for redressing the balance of trade"—whatever that may mean, and—

"(f) generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used, in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."

That section makes possible the following situation—I am not saying that the section has been used oppressively, but this could happen. An inventor manufacturer of refrigerators is exporting under his patent, let us say, 50 refrigerators a month to Venezuela. He is making them most carefully and he cannot make any more; they are good quality goods. Then Messrs. "Cheap and nasty" come along to the Board of Trade and say, You want to increase exports to Venezuela? "and the Board of Trade say," Yes". The firm then says, "We can export 500 refrigerators a month to Venezuela." The Board of Trade say, "Right. We will give you a licence under the refrigerator patent to use the invention of the firm of good repute and to export these refrigerators
996
to Venezuela. "The" cheap and nasty "firm then export 500 refrigerators a month to Venezuela. Owing to its bad construction one of the refrigerators blows up and kills a few of the local inhabitants. Thus the reputation not only of the" cheap and nasty "firm but also of the firm of good repute is ruined. That is a situation which can arise under the present law, and this Bill seeks to make that impossible. The Crown will no longer be allowed to authorise any person for his own ends to use the patented invention and sell the goods to the general public either at home or abroad. That is a major point of principle, and for that reason I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill.
It is with regret, however, that I see that the Government have not dealt with the provisions of Section 18 of the Patents Act, 1949. This section deals with secret patents. It was a new section in 1949 and it was enacted before the Crichel Down case and before Mr. Pilgrim's unfortunate death—in fact, at the height of the "smash and grab" era. The noble Lord who piloted it through this House has, I see, since then had second thoughts on this sort of thing, because when he spoke on the Copyright Bill, as the chief Opposition spokesman, he spoke of the natural property right of the creator in the works of his own mind. Some of the provisions of Section 18 read quite contrary to that. This section, Section 18, allows the Comptroller General to issue directions with reference to patents applied for in relation to inventions
"of a class notified to him by a competent authority as relevant for defence purposes,"
and the directions may prohibit or restrict
"the publication of information with respect to the invention, or the communication of such information to any person or class of persons specified in the directions. …"
All that means that the inventor has his invention completely sterilised; he can do nothing with it. And if he does tell anybody about his invention he may be punished for his disobedience with imprisonment not exceeding two years and/or a fine not exceeding £500.
The man's brain child is completely sterilised. What happens when it is completely sterilised? If the Government Department use this invention then he is paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 46. But what

997
happens if the Government Department do not use the invention, and merely want to keep it up their sleeve so that the enemy does not get it? Then you would expect some provision such as is found in Section 260 of the Customs and Excise Act to apply. That provision is to the effect that if an importer has a dispute with the Customs and Excise as to the value of his goods, the dispute shall be referred to a referee appointed by the Lord Chancellor who Shall not be an official of the Government Department.
What do we find in Section 18 of the Patents Act? This man has had his invention entirely sterilised and can do nothing with it. The Government are not using it. This provision applies:
"if it appears to a competent authority that the applicant for the patent has suffered hardship by reason of the continuance in force of the directions, that authority may,"—
and your Lordships will notice that the word "may" is used here and not "shall"—
"with the consent of the Treasury, make to him such payment (if any) by way of compensation as appears to them to be reasonable having regard to the novelty and utility of the invention"—
and so on. If an invention is worth suppressing then it is worth paying for. What on earth does "hardship" mean in the section? If the inventor, let us say, is an employee of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, that company may have spent half a million pounds on the invention. It is completely sterilised. The Government Department may well say, "A big company like that can well afford £500,000. They have not suffered hardship." It is not laid down at all what that word means.
I mentioned that there is no compulsion on the Government Department to pay any compensation, and there is no independent arbitrator whatsoever. Two Government Departments have to decide together whether the man is to get any compensation. I do not apologise for bringing up this matter, because it has rankled for a long time and it is germane to this Bill. But I do suggest that the Government should take note that it would be a good thing to amend this section, along with the other sections that they have amended already in this Bill, to abolish the means test for inventors and to appoint some independent person to assess what compensation the inventor whose invention is suppressed should get,
998
and that that compensation should be as of right and not merely at the whim of a Government Department. Now, my Lords, I commend the rest of the Bill. It is an excellent Bill; but I suggest that that point should be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government, either as an Amendment later to this Bill or in other legislation.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I welcome this Bill for several reasons. I find myself at a considerable disadvantage and in some trepidation as being the only non-lawyer who has spoken on this subject. The Bill is really very technical indeed. I have done my best to understand it, but it is open to very considerable doubt whether a layman, at any rate of my calibre, ever understands such a complicated Bill. I must admit that the point raised by Lord Cawley did not strike me. I thought there was provision whereby the patentee, if he could not come to agreement with the Government contractor in three months' time—I think it is three months; but it may be six—could then go to the High Court and have the matter adjusted there. However, that just shows how little one really knows when one is not a lawyer.
Nevertheless, the point that impresses me, and I think is of cardinal importance, is the recognition that is given to the provisions of secrecy. I think it is paramount that there should be no question whatever of the Government's being able to demand secret information, secret patents and the one word I may not use—"acquired skill" is an interpretation of it. American opinion showed itself at one time very touchy indeed on this subject, and I am sure that if we are to get interdependence, or the benefit of interdependence, in manufacturing to other people's designs in this country, complete and absolute belief on the part of the manufacturers that their secret information is safe and secure is essential.
I am impressed by how extraordinarily closely this Bill follows the Howitt Report. The point that strikes me, after the Howitt Report, is the great trouble to which the Board of Trade, or my noble friend the Minister, went in order to make sure that industry had a complete and full chance of discussing these problems. I know that meetings were held while the Bill was being drafted and the matter was gone through by representatives of the

999
industry with a fine tooth comb—at any rate, their advice was sought on it. The people who were consulted were the Federation of British Industries, British European Airways, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Union of Manufacturers, the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation, the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and the London County Council. That gives a fairly good cover of general opinion, and all those bodies appear to have been at least satisfied, if not entirely enthusiastic. I think most of them were very enthusiastic.
A matter which to my mind is of greater importance than anything else is paragraph 21 on page 7 of the Howitt Committee Report. It is quite short, and with your Lordships' permission I will read it. They say:
"We regard it as of paramount importance that the proposed legislation should, expressly and positively, and not merely by inference, make it clear beyond the peradventure of a doubt that no disclosure is authorised by any person to any person ('person' in both cases including the Crown and its representatives), of any information which any person is by the relevant contract prohibited from disclosing.
This, we understand, is acceptable to the Departments concerned, in the full realisation of its meaning and effect. If it had not been acceptable, our conclusion as to the desirability of granting the powers to the Crown might well have been different."
Then I leave out a little bit. The Committee go on to say:
"It is, of course, at this point that the vital difference emerges between patented inventions and inventions or information which are not, or cannot be, patented. Where patents exist, the disclosure of the particulars of the invention is not harmful—indeed, it is necessary—but the disclosure is accompanied by statutory protection. In the case of unpatented inventions there is no such statutory protection.
"We assume that the Act will be binding upon the Crown, particularly as to the provisions forbidding disclosure of information."
That seems to be very strongly expressed, and I think it is the key to the whole matter.
It is a courageous thing on the part of the Government to grasp the nettle, and I think they have done extremely well in producing—as a second shot, I might almost say—a Bill which seems to have answered all these difficult problems. I can only hope that a similar kind of legislation, negotiation, or whatever would be appropriate, will follow in Europe,
1000
where the seven countries in the Western European Union are continually being faced, when they start talking about standardisation or helping each other out, or manufacturing other people's weapons, and so on, with the problem that is always cropping up on the disclosure of information. There is the possibility which is at the back of all industrialists' minds, that their competitive position will be damaged by that. I think this is a good and courageous lead on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and I hope that something of the kind I have indicated, not tied on to it in any shape or form, will be forthcoming in the future.
3.38 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I will stand for only a few brief minutes between your Lordships and the Leader on the important statement to which we are looking forward. I should like to thank your Lordships for the friendly way in which this Bill has been received—a great deal more friendly than the reception which was extended to its predecessor in 1953. As to the kindly remarks which my noble friend, Lord Stonehaven, has just addressed to me, I must point out that in this case "B.E.A." and "L.C.C." do not mean the British European Airways and the London County Council but the British Engineering Association and the London Chamber of Commerce. We had better get that matter straight at once.
The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, raised a highly technical point about Section 18 (3) (b) of the Patents Act. The Act provides, as he has told us, for statutory compensation to be paid for the Government use of patents held secret for defence reasons; but by holding a patent secret the competent authority may in fact deprive the owner of the opportunity of exploiting his invention for ordinary civil use. It was agreed on both sides of the House in 1949, at the time of Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Act, that there should be statutory provision for an ex-gratia payment to be made to the owner for any loss of a potential civil market. It was also agreed, however, that this was not a suitable place for statutory compensation; that is, settlement by the courts.
The power to have patents held secret has been most carefully exercised so as not to impair the owner's position. As

1001
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, would agree—and no one knows better than he—every effort has been made, when the patent appears to have a civil market, either not to hold it secret or to remove the secrecy provisions as soon as possible. I am glad to be able to reassure my noble friend and to tell the House that, as a result, the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty have not had a single claim made to them under Section18 (3) (b). That seems to me to be the best possible evidence that the power is being exercised with circumspection. I however, look carefully into the extremely cogent and closely argued remarks which my noble friend addressed to the House, and will take the expert advice which they certainly deserve. If there is anything further I can do to meet the noble Lord's point I will certainly do it, but I feel that I can assure the House that the fears he has expressed are not actually so prevalent as he might other-wise think. With those few words I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL
3.41 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CYPRUS
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to interrupt Business for a few moments. Your Lordships will know that an undertaking was given by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary on May 19 that a detailed statement of the comprehensive policy on the Cyprus problem which Her Majesty's Government had prepared during recent months would be made not later than to-day. In preparation for this the policy has been fully explained to the Turkish and Greek Governments. It has also been put be-for the N.A.T.O. Council, and yesterday
1002
afternoon there was a full and helpful discussion during which our efforts to rind a new basis for a solution received general recognition.
As a result, M. Spaak, on behalf of the Council, conveyed to Her Majesty's Government last night the strong request to postpone for forty-eight hours their Parliamentary statement in the belief that this short delay would be of advantage. I trust your Lordships will feel that Her Majesty's Government have done right in all the circumstances to accede to this request. We recognise the great forbearance which Parliament as a whole has shown on this matter. We also have in mind the definite undertaking that a full statement would be made not later than to-day; and we had already made arrangements for a debate in another place next week. Nevertheless, we did not feel that we could turn a deaf ear to the plea of our Allies in N.A.T.O.; nor do we think any opportunity should be neglected which might lead to a settlement. We shall in any case make a statement on Thursday in the light of the progress made.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Home, for the statement he has made. I am sure that no one in any quarter of the House would wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and we will therefore accept the position and look forward to the statement on Thursday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is in agreement with what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said, and it would clearly be premature if we were to press Her Majesty's Government at the present time. I should, however, like to ask one question of the noble Leader of the House: will he give facilities for a debate in this House when the time comes and will he be good enough to let us know when he thinks such a debate could usefully be held?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will certainly respond to the request of the noble Marquess. Perhaps we might see how we get along and arrange a debate through the usual channels at a convenient time.

LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL
3.45 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I do not propose to move either of the Amendments standing in my name, and if your Lordships will permit me I should like to give an explanation. I was able to table those Amendments only late on Friday evening, having received instructions from the River Boards' Association in the country in the morning. I did what I could, just in time. The River Boards' Association have had further discussions with the Government Departments concerned, and as a result of those discussions the Association have received assurances that the matters which I should otherwise have raised by my Amendments will be satisfactorily dealt with by legislative action. It was also indicated that such concurrence of views would be put in writing for the benefit of the records kept by the River Boards' Association. Lastly, I would thank those Departments for their understanding of our difficulties, and express regret for the late tabling of the Amendments on the Report stage—it was unavoidable on our part, as we assemble representatives from the length and breadth of this country only at stated intervals, and the last full meeting occurred early last week.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Albemarle for not moving his Amendments, and to hasten to assure him, as my noble friend has said, that the interests of the drainage boards are in no way detrimentally affected by this Bill. As the noble Lord has asked, I will see that the Departments concerned write to him to make it quite clear that this is so.
This somewhat complicated but modest Bill has passed through its various stages in your Lordships' House and another place, and has generally met with assent. I shall, therefore, with your Lordships'
1004
permission, deal only with the two points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he moved and withdrew his Amendments, and that raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. The noble Viscount suggested that inconvenience would possibly be caused to farmers, landowners and others when manœuvres are being held, in that they would have to make great research into the various Manœuvres Acts dating back to 1897. I assure the noble Viscount that the new Manœuvres Commission will be a most vital and approachable body, and in any case most of the problems will be capable of solution on the spot. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, however, to consolidate all these various Manœuvres Acts, going back to 1897, and to bring them all up to date in one Act, together with the relevant clauses of this Bill.
With regard to Clause 10 and the Amendment withdrawn by my noble friend Lord Dundee, I am most grateful to him for bringing the attention of your Lordships to this point. It has been most closely looked into, and I am glad to say that we have found, as I intimated to my noble friend, that this point was groundless. My noble friend was afraid that an owner would not be notified of any work that was to be commenced upon his land and would not have the opportunity of removing offending obstructions himself. It is quite clear from the Second Schedule, at page 33, line 36, that the owner will, in fact, be notified. The circumstances envisaged by my noble friend would arise only if the owner were to object or if the owner could not be found, and I think that that last point would be a very rare case indeed; nevertheless, it happens. In the case of objections being raised by the owner a full inquiry would be held by a tribunal, with an independent chairman, which would be appointed by my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack, under the Franks Committee's recommendations. If it were a case for compensation, then the compensation would be decided by the Lands Tribunal, as is stated on page 15, line 36; and in Scotland it would be by the official arbiter, under Clause 25, page 29, line 37. And, of course, as is also stated in the Bill, the owner would have the full right to sell the timber, stone or salvage that was involved with the removal of such objects or property.

1005
We are referring to a compulsory order upon an owner which must be carried out. In the event of a refusal by the owner, or of his inability to remove such objects, it is necessary that the onus should be put upon the occupier, after due inquiry and with due compensation, for the lull loss and for damages incurred. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for drawing your Lordships' attention to this point and for withdrawing his Amendment; and I trust it is now quite clear that his fears are unfounded. My noble friend's second Amendment was to Clause 25, at page 29, line 23. The Amendment sought to remove from the definition of owner—
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but I should like to be clear as to exactly what we are doing. It looks as if the noble Earl is replying to Amendments which have not been moved, and which it is not intended to move; and he is making the speech he would have made if those Amendments had been moved. As the matter stands at the moment, there are no Amendments.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Amendments were moved in Committee and withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN: We are now on the Report stage, and I am wondering exactly what is the procedure that we are adopting in this case. I should have thought that the noble Earl's speech that he is making now would have been appropriate on the Third Reading. I wonder whether it is appropriate on the Report stage, when there is nothing before us. There are no Amendments.
EARL BATHURST: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I promised my noble friend that I would make it clear that his fears were unfounded, and therefore he withdrew his Amendment. But I would certainly, if your Lordships would wish it, and if I have your Lordships' permission, state that fact on Third Reading or at any other time your Lordships wish.
LORD SILKIN: I do not mind the noble Earl going on, but I wanted to know what was the procedure. I should have thought it rather unorthodox for him to continue and that his speech would have been more appropriate on Third Reading.
EARL BATHURST: Perhaps it would be better if these points were brought out on Third Reading. I am most grateful to the noble Lord opposite.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).

PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (CHILDREN) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
3.57 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion for Second Reading moved yesterday by Lord Mancroft.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, there is no doubt that at first sight the Park Lane Improvement Bill is viewed by all with the greatest favour, as are all Bills dealing with the improvement of roads. However, though the objects may be admirable I feel that the means it implies are not at all good, and I have the gravest doubts whether the scheme would succeed in its objects. I think that many noble Lords will have been considerably reassured by Lord Mancroft's statement yesterday that the utmost care will be taken to retain as many trees and amenities as possible. One point on which I should like reassurance, however—and I think there are many other people who would also—is the Cavalry Memorial. It is a very

1007
well-loved Memorial and there is a very big parade every March (I believe it is) when a large number of Cavalrymen come to parade before it. Could an assurance be given that this Memorial will be placed in a most suitable position and with the full accord of suitable senior Cavalry officers?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt to give the noble Lord that assurance at once. The matter is being discussed with the Royal Armoured Corps, with a view to cooperating with them concerning their Memorial. It will probably be in the vicinity; probably just inside the new gates on the south road.
LORD GISBOROUGH: With regard to the improvement scheme itself, I wonder whether Hyde Park Corner is the correct place to start these alterations. Hyde Park Corner is a place of traffic jams only at rush hours—indeed, at ten o'clock to-day I drove straight through it without being held up for a moment.
EARL HOWE: There are no buses running at the moment.
LORD GISBOROUGH: Even when the buses are running I have found the same thing, although perhaps the road has not been quite so clear. But in St. James's, Regent Street, Piccadilly and Knightsbridge (to mention a few places) there is a constant "jam"; there is in these places a far greater jam", when buses are running, than there is at Hyde Park Corner. It should be remembered, perhaps, that even if the plan is put into effect, the buses will be using the Corner when they return.
If this new plan succeeds there will be a constant flow of traffic in all directions. Presumably this constant flow will be towards Piccadilly, so that if one comes from the direction of the Ritz and wants to go to Park Lane Hotel, it will be impossible to cross over the road in either direction. It will be necessary to go right round the whole Corner before one can get across the road. This constant flow of traffic will also pile up against Knightsbridge and Piccadilly Circus and the area of St. James's, with no phasing by lights, as there is at the moment, so that the traffic can sort itself out. What plans are there for relieving
1008
this constant flow of traffic on either side, in the way it has been so well catered for towards Marble Arch?
This is a grandiose plan. Cannot we be reassured that it is going to be effective not just for twenty years' time but for almost all time? Because a plan of this size should be big enough to last almost for ever. One point which I think has been omitted is parking facilities. On June 11 the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that parking facilities in the Park would be slightly decreased by this plan. When so many millions are being spent, and so much roadway and park is being dug up for foundations, would it not be a comparatively small matter to dig a little deeper and create underground car parks, perhaps at the two corners and in the middle of the new dual-carriageway? Surely this is an opportunity which will not come again. I sincerely hope that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, of using Rotten Row for parking, will not be countenanced. It would be a great pity to have a mass of cars visible in the Park.
With regard to the actual working of the plan, competent foreign authorities have condemned it because they say that it will not work. I trust that their reasons for saying this have been fully studied. I think that, with a plan of this size, if there are any reasonable doubts, we should be satisfied whether or not they are correct. I myself have grave doubts whether the plan is adequate. First, the openings from the dual-carriageway are opposite streets running into Mayfair, so that, for example, anyone coming out of Upper Grosvenor Street and intending to go north will have to cross over at right angles to the traffic coming south, which seems to me to be a bad plan, necessitating lights or some form of control which, ideally, should not be necessary.
Then, surely, the road going round the roundabout is, as planned, far too narrow for "weaving" traffic. London Transport have said that they will not use the underpass road. I believe that only 14 per cent. of the traffic using the spot at the moment will use the underpass. Surely that percentage will soon be made up by the increase in the number of cars on the road. With all the buses on the

1009
roundabout, and the increased traffic to absorb the 14 per cent., in spite of the area which the roundabout is to take up there will still be a great amount of crossing, intermingling traffic. The Park Lane—Constitution Hill traffic will be crossing with the Knightsbridge—Piccadilly traffic; the Piccadilly to Victoria traffic with the Park Lane—Constitution Hill traffic; the Constitution Hill—Knightsbridge traffic with the Piccadilly to Victoria. So it goes on all the way round. The scheme provides for a comparatively narrow entrance to Knightsbridge—certainly no wider than the one at the moment. Again, with all the buses and only 7 per cent. less traffic (7 per cent. is going the other way) surely there will be no less a jam than there is at the moment and certainly no improvement. I do not think that this roundabout is a satisfactory proposition at all.
One route which I think has been entirely neglected is the route from Piccadilly to Belgrave Square, Pond Street and out to the West. That route has been given no special treatment, and one has only to go that way to see how many cars use it. The same may be said of traffic from Belgrave Square coming eastwards. Surely a scheme of such magnitude cannot be allowed to start with such basic and inherent faults. The whole corner is to be enlarged in area. The Royal Parks are to be decreased. The only advantage is that there will be 14 per cent. less traffic using the surface roads, of which presumably only 7 per cent. will be effective in any one direction. Apart from the enlargement of the whole area, there is to be no great improvement; and what imporvement there is will be taken up very soon by the increase in traffic. There will still be a "jam"—but over a larger acreage. If there is not a "jam," the constant stream down St. James's, Piccadilly and Knightsbridge will be made infinitely worse, unless improvements to the approaches are planned and integrated with this present scheme.
If a scheme of this size is to be undertaken, surely it would be more sensible that we should tackle effectively the problems of this "weaving" traffic, of which there are no fewer than eight or nine different permutations. It should be well linked with the traffic problems for a mile in all directions, just as it has been so well linked with the Marble Arch. Until the time when a comprehensive
1010
plan, even if only for the future, can be made, surely it is preferable to modify the present set-up. I believe that the present "jam" is caused by one main source. I firmly believe that if the traffic going from St. George's into the Park could be diverted, perhaps taken to the West and then into the Park, that would allow a constant flow up North and then to the West and East, and the whole "jam" would be vastly relieved at a much lower cost than the enormous scheme envisaged at the moment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to inform the House whither he would divert the traffic. Where would it enter the Park from St. George's?
LORD GISBOROUGH: I cannot claim to be a road designer, but I had in mind that if the traffic was not allowed to cross over and through the Decimus Burton screen but had to go to the left, towards the West, perhaps it could turn into the Park by a tunnel or some means of that sort. The road planners would have a much better idea than I have, but I believe that it might be the answer. Perhaps not; I do not know. Of course, there would be a great need for pedestrian tunnels. I dislike this plan. I do not think it achieves enough improvement over what we have at present. It does not improve the problem of cross-traffic and mingling traffic; and until such time as they may be altered, it infinitely worsens the position of Knightsbridge and Piccadilly.
LORD SOERS: May I interrupt the noble Lord to remind him that in any through-traffic route, if one looks over the entire country, there are bound to be a series of bottlenecks. If one is going to remedy them, one can start only with one at a time; we cannot deal with them all at once.
LORD GISBOROUGH: I agree. But I feel that when the time comes for a complete review, in order to make the traffic flow readily through Piccadilly and Knightsbridge, it may be necessary to alter Hyde Park Corner to fit in with the plan. I dislike the plan for several reasons: it reduces the Royal Parks; it has no parking facilities attached to it; the tunnel is unacceptable to the buses; and the gain on any one side will be only 7 per

1011
cent. I believe that the problem is soluble on a far more limited and less costly scale by modification of the present corner, which is by no means London's worst bottleneck, until such time as complete control of all the West End traffic can be incorporated in one co-ordinated plan.
4.12 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I find myself in almost entire agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said yesterday. It follows, I suppose, that I am to a large extent in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Conesford; and I think I am in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Gisborough, although I am not clear as to what he meant. So far as I understand it, the gist of his speech was this: first, that because traffic is going to increase largely in the near future, you should therefore do nothing now; and secondly, that this does not answer the whole traffic problem of Central London, The first argument I must disagree with; but with the second, that it does not answer the whole traffic problem of Central London, I entirely agree.
I am not going to enter in detail into my differences with my noble friend Lord Conesford, because I imagine that my noble friend Lord Mancroft will deal with what is necessary, but I will say this. With respect, I think that much of my noble friend's argument yesterday was based on prejudice rather than on reason. I do not wish to be in any way impolite, but I should like to quote one paragraph from the noble Lord's speech. In column 878 of yesterday's Hansard the noble Lord was discussing the question of a roundabout at Marble Arch. The argument against having underpasses there, so he said—and indeed it is true—is the excessive cost owing to the valuable property in Edgware Road which would have to be demolished. That was, I think, the reason given by the Ministry; and it certainly is the reason why a roundabout is being used there. Then the noble Lord went on to say:
"I am not joking—that was the reason given. What will be thought by posterity of a Parliament that thought the expense of demolition in the Edgware Road so obviously more important than the destruction of the amenities of Green Park?"
1012
What on earth has the roundabout at Marble Arch got to do with the amenities of Green Park?
I will deal, first of all, with my view of the amenities. It is most regrettable that they have to be affected in certain directions, but I think a sense of proportion is necessary here. With this scheme, unfortunately, a considerable slice has to be taken off Green Park—that I admit. On the immediate inside of Hyde Park at Hyde Park Corner the amenities are not, in fact, affected. That is not an open space amenity; it is a roadway open space. It is there now, and does not take away anything from the open space element of the Park. On the way up Park Lane, on the west of the present East Carriage Drive, I think I am correct in saying that no trees will have to come down. On the part that is between the East Carriage Drive and Park Lane, for the whole length of the Park there will be somewhere about ten or twelve trees (the exact number is not yet certain) that will have to come down.
When we get to Marble Arch, in my view anything that is done to Marble Arch from the amenity point of view must be an improvement on the present situation. I always think of that corner of Marble Arch—and I include the roadway—as something of a Park slum. I think that this new design will be a great improvement; and in my view, it will be a great improvement from the amenity point of view when the Speakers' Corner is set rather farther back. So I think, on balance, regrettable as the Green Park end is, we are not losing very much; and as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said yesterday, this is a matter where we have to balance one thing against another.
As regards the actual road and traffic side of the question, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said yesterday that this matter has been discussed since 1937. I think it must have been discussed, first of all, somewhere about 1850, when I know there were complaints about the crowds of carriages at Hyde Park Corner. The London County Council have at any rate been dealing with this matter certainly since 1937, and before. In the decision that has been taken on the present plan I am fully aware that the expert road engineers and road designers have disagreed. There are various methods of dealing with the matter. The Ministry,

1013
and successive Ministers, have had all the information and all the advice from all sides as to the best method of handling it, and, on balance, they have decided on this scheme. It may not be perfect, but, in my view, it is probably as good as any other.
What is my noble friend Lord Cones-ford asking? This is a problem which exists. It is no good saying that Hyde Park Corner is satisfactory. It carries this great volume of traffic, and it is, apart from the volume of traffic, owing to its shape, size and the way the traffic comes in and out, an extremely dangerous corner. This is the scheme that is considered the best—I am not suggesting it is the best, because that is, among the experts, a matter of opinion, some taking one view and some another. But if this Bill does not go forward, nothing will be done for another three years; the same result will probably come out "in the wash," and the same scheme will be put forward again.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to explain. He has asked what I am asking for. The answer is quite simple. I am asking for the publication to this House of the report on this scheme and the experiments made by the Road Research Laboratory. I think it is a reasonable demand that, if we are to take twenty-one acres of the Royal Parks—though I know some of that is carriageway—we should at least know that, in the opinion of the traffic experts, the scheme is going to work. We have been refused that report.
LORD DERWENT: Unfortunately I cannot answer the noble Lord in detail about the Road Research Laboratory, because I have had a confidential indication (not from the Minister) and therefore I must say nothing about it; I must leave it to the Minister. As to which view they take, I am not going to hazard a guess. But assuming—and I by no means assume it—that they take a view against this particular plan (I have no reason to think they do) other experts are in favour of the plan, and you will simply get the same thing over again. I am a great admirer of the Road Research Laboratory, but they are only one expert against another. I repeat, that what the noble Lord is asking for is that this Bill should not go forward. If it does not go forward
1014
now we shall have several years' delay and the result may be the same.
As regards the actual traffic, I hope and trust that this plan will be adequate for internal traffic—I will explain what I mean in a minute. Even on Lord Conesford's figure of 14 per cent. of the traffic approaching Hyde Park Corner going through the underpasses—and I do not accept or reject that figure; I do not know how it is arrived at—that is an improvement, because that traffic will not be using Hyde Park Corner. Are we never going to have any improvement because the percentage is not high enough? That may be the right percentage or it may not; I do not know. But it is time we had an improvement.
This scheme will not be adequate for the traffic going there unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said yesterday, we deal with the through traffic; that is to say, the traffic coming into one end of London and going out the other—Ealine to the Docks, for example, where the quickest way is to go through Central London. Owing to the ring roads being old-fashioned and congested and having crossroads and so on, very often the quickest way for through traffic is, strange to say, through the centre of London. If ring roads are made with limited access, even if traffic has to do an extra five miles of route it will probably save half an hour in traffic jams. This is only part of a large scheme, but it will not work until through traffic is taken out of the centre of London, and you will not do that except by providing proper roads. This is only part of the total scheme. On the other hand, it would be madness not to start improving things, instead of arguing year in and year out whether something might or might not be an improvement. This is, at any rate, an improvement.
I want to raise one minor question and ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for some help. Immediately behind the garden of 148, Piccadilly—not Apsley House but 148, Piccadilly—just outside the present garden fence and inside the Park is a specimen plane tree. It is, I am informed, the largest plane tree in any of the parks. It is a magnificent tree in very good condition and clearly one of the finest trees in London. There has been a difference of opinion amongst the experts, as usual. As the plan is

1015
made at the moment, there is just beyond that tree to be the roadway of an island, a roadway which is called "Southern Apsley Link". I am informed by some experts that if we move that island a few yards to the north, or alternatively if we cut a bit off the southern piece of that island, the tree can be saved and the traffic flow will not be affected. The other experts, who are largely on the engineering side, say that it will interrupt the flow of the traffic. It is such a magnificent tree that it ought to be saved if possible, and I merely ask my noble friend if he will have a special look at it. My own advisers think somebody may be being pigheaded. On the other hand, they may not. Will he see if it can be saved? I do not know.
4.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I was one of the noble Lords who accompanied the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, last Friday morning on the expedition to look at the ground plan of this scheme on the spot itself. In the first place, I should like to thank very much those who made that possible and made the morning so interesting and took so much trouble to show us everything in great detail. Although I am not a great expert on this subject, I should like to point out a few things which impressed me about this scheme.
The first is that although so much of the Park is apparently going to be taken, in fact only four and a half acres of amenities throughout the entire area are going to be lost from grass to roadway, and I think that that is an astonishingly small acreage to lose in so large a scheme in the middle of London. In addition, although the total figure to be lost from the Royal Parks is twenty-one acres—and, of course, I regret that as much as any other noble Lord—the reason this is being done is because the Park railings on the east side, which at the moment run in between Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive, are going to be moved to the west side of the East Carriage Drive. The central strip between Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive, although it will no longer technically be in the Royal Parks, will still be green. It will be more accessible than it is at the moment, as any noble Lord will know who has tried to cross the East
1016
Carriage Drive in the middle of the day, because there will be subways; and in fact I very much doubt whether there will be much loss of amenity in that central strip.
As for the Green Park, a great deal has been said about the lamentable loss of the row of trees flanking Piccadilly from Down Street up to Hyde Park Corner. I would agree that it is a great pity that any fine plane trees of that size should be lost. But nobody has yet said that there is in fact a second row of trees inside Green Park which will stretch almost as far as does the present outside row and will not be touched by the present scheme, so that those who look out from offices on the north side of Piccadilly will still look at green plane trees, and at one point a chestnut tree.
Further on towards Grosvenor Gardens there will be lost the triangle of what is at the present moment marked green on the corner of Buckingham Palace Gardens. If any noble Lord looks at that particular corner, I do not think he will say that much amenity will be lost if that is no longer kept green. It is not open to the public; it is full of weeds and it takes the form of a high bank with some rather nondescript shrubs upon it. On the other hand, in the middle of Hyde Park Corner at the moment there is a large expanse of concrete and some small plane trees, of which at least two are almost dead. I am not surprised they are dead considering the amount of the exhaust fumes that must be puffed out at them every day in the morning and the evening when the traffic is stationary all round them. On the contrary, this scheme provides for a large area of green grass in the centre of Hyde Park Corner and more trees than there are at present. Among other things, I suggest that that will be a great deal pleasanter prospect for St. George's Hospital than the present expanse of concrete and half-dead plane trees.
I do not know very much about the traffic scheme, but I have driven round Hyde Park Corner many times and it would surprise me if the traffic went any slower by the removal of traffic lights at St. George's Hospital Corner. At the moment, either the traffic coming up the side of St. George's Hospital from the south is stationary, or the traffic coming from west to east along Knightsbridge is stationary. As the scheme is now intended

1017
to go, that traffic will not be stationary in any direction at any point. It will have to weave across, but there will not be any period in which traffic lights are red and cars cannot cross each other.
As for the traffic at Marble Arch, I cannot but feel that any improvement would be a large one. In the rush hour there are two small gates for all the traffic to get out of the Park, and there are two small gates by which to get in. When the traffic gets into the Park from Marble Arch itself and wishes to turn west it has to cross all the traffic that is waiting to go out of the Park by those gates. Equally, all the traffic which is going along the North Carriage Drive and which has to go along the East Carriage Drive in a southerly direction also has to cross all the traffic which is going out of the gate from south to north. As the scheme is proposed, there will be one traffic island and the traffic will all go round in the same direction, from whatever direction it may have come. I cannot but think that this is a scheme which is going to make a great difference, and improvement, and the cost in amenities is not very great in comparison. I would support the scheme.
4.31 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I rise most warmly to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which is designed to authorise the carrying out at Hyde Park of a most comprehensive, imaginative and bold scheme to deal with a congestion problem that is probably the most acute there is in London. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said, this problem has been under consideration by the London County Council and by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation for many years. I can remember as far back as 1946 considering at County Hall a number of schemes then designed to deal with this problem, and I think it would be a thousand pities if now, some twelve years after, we should hesitate to carry out a scheme which on balance, as my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said yesterday, has the advantage of adequately dealing with the problem.
It has been said that this is the largest single scheme carried out in London since the construction of Kingsway in 1905. I would remind the House that that scheme was most strenuously opposed, yet few would be heard to say now, or for some
1018
years past, that Kingsway was not a successful road improvement scheme. I do not wish to revive old controversies, but I cannot help reflecting this afternoon upon the opposition which the construction of Waterloo Bridge met with between the wars—an opposition which, unhappily, was shared by the Government of the day, with the result that the London County Council were punished for carrying out their statutory duty and responsibility to the tune of loss of grant of some £220,000. The demolition of the old bridge, which was opposed among others by the Royal Fine Art Commission, was of course part of a larger scheme to embrace the north and south approaches; and if those approaches be taken into account with the bridge, probably that scheme would be larger in extent and cost than the present scheme in respect of Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner. But who would say now that the London County Council were wrong? They have constructed what I think may be described, with due modesty, as one of the most beautiful bridges in this country, and it may well be in Europe. It is a pity that the scheme for the improvement of the northern approach at Wellington Street has not proceeded.
I well recall agreeing with the then Minister of Transport as far back as 1939, after a long tussle, the rate of grant which we should receive in respect of that scheme which even then was a most expensive scheme, having regard to the property which would have to be acquired. Now the powers have been obtained and a fair measure of the property has been acquired. I understand that that scheme is one of those receiving the attention of the Committee presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation as to priorities in respect of London street improvements. I hope that it may earn a reasonable and respectable priority. As regards the approach from the south the Elephant and Castle scheme is in hand and I gather that the first half is proceeding satisfactorily. May I say here, as it were in parenthesis, that London is not under-bridged? The trouble with London's bridges is the bad approaches to them, which render nugatory much of the facility which the bridge has for traffic; and informed opinion is satisfied that if we could improve the approaches

1019
to Waterloo Bridge it would result in a considerable relief of congestion both on the north and on the south of that bridge.
One of the chief objections to the present scheme at Hyde Park Corner is the encroachment on the Royal Parks. No one would desire to encroach upon any park or open space, whether Royal or otherwise, if it were avoidable. No one would wish to take more than is absolutely essential. I think those persons responsible for designing this scheme have really achieved a great success in being able so to fashion it, if I may use that phrase, that no more than about 4½ acres net will be taken from the Royal Parks. It is regrettable that anything should be taken, but that is a fairly minimum amount. As my noble friend Lord Silkin said yesterday, offset against that, and quite near to it, is the fact that the London County Council has acquired Holland Park, an area of 38 acres. I am always encouraged when I remember that I was largely instrumental in advising the London County Council to acquire that open space just before I resigned from the Council in 1947. I will say, quite frankly, that I could have wished that that 38 acres had been in some other part of London, notably in the congested boroughs of the East End and South-East London, but one has to take the land for open space where it is available. But as I say, I am very proud that the London County Council, after much negotiation, succeeded in acquiring that open space for the benefit for all time of the people of London.
The London County Council propose to spend some £500,000 on the lay-out of the reservation and islands, on the advice—and I stress this—of the Royal Fine Art Commission. As has been said, the East Carriage Drive is now a traffic route carrying an enormous volume of cars and similar vehicles. The scheme does nothing more in that respect than regularise and control the position, as it will also regularise traffic through Park Lane; and unless that is done we may easily find that traffic passing, as it now does, along the East Carriage Drive and Park Lane will come to something near a standstill.
Then the question of the destruction of trees has been raised in opposition. No sensible person would wish to destroy trees, but they are not sacrosanct, as
1020
Lord Blackford said yesterday—indeed, additional trees can be planted. Many of the local authorities in London have for years been planting additional trees along their highways and their streets. The matter was initiated by Dr. Salter in Bermondsey as far back as 1920. Dr. Salter was a fine citizen of London, devoted to Bermondsey, and when he became Mayor of Bermondsey he instituted a policy of planting trees in its dingy streets. Furthermore, as the Council at that time had no power to spend money on the planting of trees, Dr. Salter paid for them out of his own pocket. Now that the authorities have that power, they have over the past twenty years planted quite a number of trees. My Lords, desirable and beautiful as are trees, we cannot live by trees alone.
Questions have been raised about why we are retaining Hamilton Place in the scheme as the main southbound traffic route into Hyde Park Corner. That matter has been very carefully considered on more than one occasion. The essence of the Hyde Park Corner problem is that a considerable proportion of the total traffic wishes to turn in one direction or another, and fly-overs and underpasses are of no direct value to these traffic streams. Of the various methods of catering for them, roundabout operation in which interweaving of different streams is facilitated was agreed by all those concerned to be the most satisfactory. On this basis, if "weaving" for southbound traffic from Hamilton Place were to be provided, the central island at Hyde Park Corner would have to be much larger and the underpass longer, resulting in a much less favourable time factor; and, what is not less important, more of Green Park would be absorbed. If the island were kept to the present size, there would be a direct traffic cut, as at present, at Hamilton Place, and this would require signal control at this corner of the central island. This would greatly reduce the traffic capacity of the intersection and would increase delays. Another disadvantage would be that Hamilton Place would become of inadequate width, and in these circumstances the widening would have been very costly. I think that is a satisfactory answer to the quite understandable point as to what function Hamilton Place will serve in the reconstructed area.

1021
I am sure that we are all pleased that the Government ultimately accepted the necessity for a four-lane underpass, which I believe was the original suggestion of the London County Council. It is true that it will cost £750,000 more, but my own view is that that will be money well spent; especially as we gather from the statement by the Minister in another place that the two-lane underpass would have provided for no more than a 40 per cent. reserve capacity over the next ten to fifteen years, whereas in another connection the Ministry have told local authorities to make provision in their plans for a 75 per cent. increase in traffic within the next ten to fifteen years. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister should have first decided on no more than a two-lane underpass. One can only hope that the four-lane provision will be adequate for the needs of the future. My noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised yesterday the question of congestion as a consequence of increased traffic from the underpass into Sloane Street, Brompton Road and Kensington. He also asked whether it would create a bottleneck in Knightsbridge. I understand that the interim improvement scheme at Knightsbridge will take care of this increase in traffic.
We are informed that the scheme is acceptable to the Westminster City Council, to the Paddington Borough Council and to the St. Marylebone Borough Council, and that the various Ministers concerned have also approved. It is the case that the Royal Fine Art Commission are opposed to the whole scheme in general because of its encroachment on the Royal Parks, notwithstanding that the extent of that encroachment is no more than 4·4 acres. I regret this opposition. One has some respect for the Royal Fine Art Commission; but, after all, they are not an arbitration court: their decision is not necessarily final. The final decision must rest with the authorities charged with the responsibilty of dealing with matters of this kind, subject always, of course, to the approval and consent of Parliament. I am pleased to observe that the County Council and the Commission will be working together in connection with the layout of the strip and of the island, and no doubt in respect of other elements of amenity associated with the scheme.
1022
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth criticised—I thought perhaps a little unfairly—the London Transport Executive because of their decision that buses shall not use the underpass. First of all, one must bear in mind that the London Transport Executive are charged by Her Majesty's Government to provide a convenient, safe and speedy service of passenger transport. There is nothing to justify the idea that London Transport is against underpasses. I could point to scores of places where it would be of great advantage to London Transport if there were underpasses. But they must have regard to the facts of the case. Perhaps your Lordships will care to hear what they are.
London Transport have been forced to the conclusion that buses cannot use the underpass because if they were to do so it would be necessary to move bus stops in Knightsbridge so far away from the main traffic objective—Hyde Park Corner itself—that the public would be gravely inconvenienced. One cannot dispose of the demand reasonably to satisfy public convenience as regards a passenger transport service. Moreover, London Transport are not able themselves to determine where a bus stop shall be. Bus stops cannot be put just anywhere, and the location of each bus stop must be approved finally by the Metropolitan Police.
In any case, not all buses could use the underpass, even if that were justified on traffic grounds. There are only five routes—Numbers 9, 14, 19, 22 and 96—which traverse the crossing from east to west to and from Piccadilly and Knightsbridge. The others either turn or cross from north to south. If the buses on those five routes were to be put through the underpass it would be necessary for the stopping places for eastbound and westbound buses now located in close proximity to the intersection itself, in Knightsbridge, to be moved about 400 yards west to about the location of the existing stops opposite Wilton Place—to which the police already object because of the narrowness of the road.
In effect, therefore, the Hyde Park Corner stops would have to be eliminated, and the eastbound stops in Piccadilly which are shared with other services would require to be moved a further distance east, still further away

1023
from the traffic objective, so as to give adequate space for buses to cross the traffic stream on emerging from the ramped exit of the underpass. It is important to appreciate that much of the passenger traffic at Hyde Park Corner is interchange traffic between bus route and bus route and between road and underground. So far as the five routes in question are concerned, this interchange traffic would be completely disrupted, to the continuing serious inconvenience of the public.
According to the census of 1956 carried out by the Metropolitan Polic, 91,000 vehicles proceed through Hyde Park Corner in twelve hours. Of those 91,000 vehicles no more than 7,602 are buses; that is 8 per cent. Coaches total 1,213–1 per cent—and other traffic, 82,185, being 91 per cent. The buses on the five routes that could be sent via the underpass account for about one quarter of the total bus traffic, and no more than 2 per cent. of the total traffic. No coaches could use the underpass because the routes run along Piccadilly.
I recall that my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked: "Why should not London Transport re-route its buses?" It is not as simple as that. It is not simply a question of changing the routes to Hyde Park Corner. Other routes and services reaching far away to other districts of London would have to be adjusted, and that would almost certainly create more congestion in those parts even though it might lead to less congestion at Hyde Park Corner. For those reasons I believe your Lordships will agree that London Transport are perfectly entitled to take the view that buses should not proceed to use the underpass.
May I conclude by saying that the London County Council, despite its critics—and it has many (and probably deserves some of them)—is not a body composed of Philistines. It has as much regard for preserving open spaces in London as any other body of persons, whether in London or outside; and it has given outward and visible proof of that. At the present time the London County Council maintains 133 parks or open spaces. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, was for some years the Chairman of the Parks Committee and knows with what care and concern the London
1024
County Council in those days protected, improved and beautified the open spaces within its charge and mostly within its ownership; and it is no less concerned in these days.
The London County Council spends upwards of £1¾ million a year on maintaining and providing open spaces and also providing for suitable entertainments in those open spaces. The problem of London's open spaces is not so much that we are, in totality, short of them but that our open spaces are so badly distributed. That is the real problem of London. In the County of London Plan it was suggested, I think with the assent of most persons who were informed, that it would be a modest provision to have 4½ acres of open space per 1,000 of the population. The County of London, on that basis, is short of some 6,218 acres; and even on the basis of 2½ acres per 1,000 of the population there is a deficiency of about 3,000 acres. In some areas (and I am not saying this in a critical sense), the area is some 7 acres or 6 acres or 5 acres per 1,000 of the population; whereas in Shoreditch it is less than half an acre per 1,000 of the population; in Southwark it is even less; in Finsbury it is less; and in Islington also it is less.
It is in those areas that we need additional open space, which would, I readily admit, be no justification for encroaching upon existing open spaces. I raise these facts merely to show what the position is as regards open spaces and to make this point: that the residents of those areas are without adequate open space and have little open space at all. I believe I am right in saying that in Shoreditch almost all the open space available consists of disused burial grounds or graveyards. It means that the people who live in those districts should have good transport communications to get to the places where there are open spaces, which is another argument in favour of this important scheme. Apart from the parks being great natural "lungs", they are also places to which people wish to go to get the repose which comes from them and the entertainment which is provided; and this scheme will make the approaches and access to Hyde Park much more safe, much more convenient and much more speedy. I think that this improvement will become a

1025
great amenity as well as a great traffic improvement, and I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill your unanimous support.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he tell us what is the view of London Transport with regard to the treatment of Marble Arch and Park Lane itself?
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry, my Lords, I cannot. I am no longer officially associated with London Transport and therefore I am unable to give that information. But if the noble Earl will let me have a note of the point I will ascertain what the views of London Transport may be upon it.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, no Victorian Duchess with her carriage and pair on a Sunday morning could have driven round Hyde Park more conscientiously or more argumentatively than your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has driven further afield still; and I do not propose to traverse the ground again. But I should like, briefly, to answer one or two points which have been specifically put to me.
A point which many of your Lordships have raised is the question of the bus stops at Hyde Park Corner, and that, fortunately, has been answered for me, most accurately, by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. That is the answer. Several of your Lordships have asked about the timetable of this scheme and have criticised the length of time it is proposed to spend upon it. Her Majesty's Government agree that once Parliament have passed the Bill the scheme should be carried out with all possible speed. The London County Council intend to do so; but they and the police will have to work out a very careful programme in order to keep traffic moving throughout the whole period. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has asked to he kept informed of the timetable for all stages of the work.
Your Lordships have on more than one occasion mentioned underpasses at Brussels and in other Continental cities. I am certain that those comparisons are a little misleading. Here we have at Hyde Park Corner one of the busiest junctions in Europe, and the traffic must
1026
be kept going all the time, in an area where there are practically no suitable alternative routes. I think it is clear that it will not be possible to attack the whole scheme at once and that it will have to be carefully phased in stages. And, unlike some of these places abroad where underpasses have been successfully dug, you cannot just go digging down under Hyde Park Corner at random. If you look for the first time at a map of what goes on underneath Hyde Park Corner you will be amazed to see how much goes on. If you dig to the right you are liable to come out at Kings' Scholars' Pond Sewer; if you dig to the left you are liable to put half the telephones in South-West London out of action; if you dig too far down you are liable to cut into the Piccadilly Tube; and if you stay too near the surface you are liable to get your ears boxed by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. It is a very difficult operation and one which will require expert phasing.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (who asked me to apologise for the fact that he cannot be present), raised the question of notice to owners of property. They are mostly concerned with the shops on the north side of the west end of the underpass. We give under the Bill fourteen days' notice, and he thinks that is too short. I think, actually, that a period of x days would have been all right to give, because this is a nominal period. Everybody knows about this scheme; there has been consultation, and there will be consultation; and I have not heard of any complaints about it. I agree that we do not want to appear to do injustice and certainly not to do injustice. If the noble Lord has had any complaints I shall be grateful to know of them. In the meantime. I will look at the matter again, and if a further period will meet his difficulty I shall be pleased to put down an Amendment to that effect. But I must emphasise that we have not received any petitions against the provisions, although we do not set enormous store by the figure which actually appears in the Bill.
I wish I could help the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, about his magnificent plane tree. I should have liked it to go down to history with King Charles's Oak and Washington's cherry tree; but the engineers tell me—and I will check on this point—that, if the tree he refers to is

1027
the one I have in mind, at the west end of the southern Apsley Link, it is an enormous tree with very big roots, and if the island is moved to preserve that tree it will cause chaos in the traffic pattern at that place. But I will not ask the noble Lord to accept that; I will go and look at the tree with the experts, and if I can meet the noble Lord's point I shall be happy to do so. I hope that I have made it clear to your Lordships that I deplore the loss of these trees just as much as your Lordships do.
As to car parking, I may say that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised this matter some time ago in a supplementary question. I told him then, and I repeat it, that we intend, if it is possible (and I think it will be possible), to get as many cars as possible out of the Park when this scheme is in operation.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, if the noble Lord succeeds in getting as many cars out of the Park as possible, could he tall us where those cars will go?
LORD MANCROFT: First I will tell the noble Earl where they will not go. They will not go in car parks built on or under Rotten Row. I am sorry not to support the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, on that point, but it is one of the few things about which I could not agree with him. There has been a question, about which we have talked on more than one occasion, of a car park under the open space at the north-east end of Hyde Park. That could be done without affecting trees or amenities at all. This may be some time ahead, however, and it is a rather nebulous suggestion at the moment, but we may one day have to consider it. In the meantime, when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asks where they can go, I would only ask him whether we should go over again all the argument we had during the passage of the Road Traffic Act, on parking meters. I very much hope that cars will not come into London in such large numbers. When the new garages have been built—and they are being built—and when the existing car parks are full—and they are not full—and when the cars have been removed from outside the South side of Curzon Street and the West side of Montagu Square, I think that we may still need to have another look at this matter, as the noble Earl knows full well.
1028
The last point I want to deal with is the major one: will the scheme work? This is not a question of black and white, of one scheme that is infallible and another that cannot possibly work. Therefore, I do not argue on this point with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who said that his expert advice was that it will not work. I should like to point out that it is not correct to say that the Road Research Laboratory have not approved the proposed scheme. They were represented on the Working Party on whose Report the present scheme is based, and their representative signed that Report. Since then they have also favoured a four-lane underpass, rather than one providing two lanes only. With regard to the surface roundabout at Hyde Park Corner, the police, engineers of the Ministry of Transport and the London County Council have studied the traffic at this important centre over many years. A scheme of "channelisation" (as the horrible word is) with police control was in existence before the conversion to the existing layout in 1925, and the existing lay-out was a considerable improvement.
We have studied carefully the criticisms of the foreign experts and we respect them. We have compared our own conditions with the very different conditions in which that criticism was formed. A large number of experts have studied this problem for a great length of time. They may not have hit upon the perfect solution, but they have hit upon a solution which the Government are convinced will work. It may not be the Utopian solution. It may have one or two of the faults to which noble Lords have drawn attention, but I think that the time has come when we must make up our minds that something has to be done.
I concede the value of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford (I listened carefully to his speech), particularly that any encroachment upon the Royal Parks should be examined carefully. The noble Lord thinks that this is the thin edge of the wedge. The British Constitution is stuck full of wedges, which the common sense of the public has never yet driven home. I suggest that the noble Lord's fears will not be fulfilled. Indeed, I hope that his anxieties will prove false. I sympathise with the regret he has expressed at the loss of the trees—no Member of your Lordships' House has done anything else. But there is no

1029
other alternative that we can see. If we accede to the request of the noble Lord to reject this Bill, we go back to "Square 1", and nothing will be done for years and years.
Here at last we have a major scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, asked how far ahead we were thinking. We are thinking as far ahead as we possibly can. That is why we have a four-lane underpass in the plan. We do not guarantee that the scheme will do everything that we expect of it, but I hope that it will. The experts advise us that it will. I beg your Lordships not to reject the scheme now. Here at last we have the chance not only of relieving the traffic congestion at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch but also of dealing, to some extent, with the problem that spreads right out to Alexandra Gate and Lancaster Gate. We have a chance of improving the amenities of Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch and of relieving the whole circulation of traffic in this part of London. We have to pay the price of the encroachment on the Royal Parks and the loss of a number of trees. We deplore that bitterly, but this is a balance sheet, which we have had to
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
weigh up carefully. Having listened to everything that has been said, and recognising that the weight of opinion has been chiefly on the side of the Bill, I have come to the conclusion that I can confidently advise noble Lords who love London, and who wish to see its amenities increased, the circulation of traffic improved and the benefits to its people enlarged, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND, TEMAIR: My Lords, having been Chairman of the first Town Planning Committee of the London County Council, may I say that this Bill is an extremely important one and ought to receive the support of every noble Lord? I thank the noble Lord opposite for mentioning my name. This Bill is one of the most important from London's point of view. It will help to prevent so many of the accidents that now take place. I heartily support the Bill.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 38; Not-Contents, 4.

CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Swinton, E.

Henderson, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Alexander of Hillsborough,

Latham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lawson, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Colville of Culross, V

Mancroft, L.

Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]

Margesson, V.

Merthyr, L.

Mills, L.

Albemarle, E.

Aberdare, L.

Pakenham, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Sandford, L.

Goaford, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Home, E.

Derwent, L.

Somers, L.

Howe, E.

Dynevor, L.

Teynham, L.

Morley, E.

Glyn, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Perth, E.

Greenhill, L.

Williams, L.

Winster, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Dundee, E.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Gisborough, L. [Teller.]

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CLERGY ORPHAN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARGATE) BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.