Lords Sitting of 7 December 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR JET AIRLINERS
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they are satisfied that all the present large long-range British and foreign turbo-jet airliners using London Airport have, when fully laden on take-off or on approach and landing, a sufficient safety margin having regard to the modern tendency of many aircraft operators to increase their loads to the maximum extent permitted by the aircraft certifying authorities of their various countries.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, take-off and landing safety requirements for the long-range turbo-jets using London Airport have been formulated after continuous intensive investigation by the United Kingdom, the United States, and by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The present requirements are designed to ensure that they have an

3
adequate safety margin. The adequacy of these requirements is kept continuously under review by analysing the results of tests and of operating experience, and by photographic analysis of operational take-offs and landings.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that some competent authorities are of the opinion that the requirements he has mentioned are not sufficient to ensure safety under present conditions?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can only say that if the noble Lord will give me the names of the competent authorities I will see that the information is passed on to my right honourable friend.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the flying height is supposed to be, I believe, 1,000 feet when cruising over the country? Is he also aware that aeroplanes taking off from Heath Row, for example, go over adjacent areas at much less than that flying height? Is he also aware that we are told that that is because they are very heavy? They have a full load of fuel and perhaps passengers as well. But the fact remains that they come over at night, and it is quite impossible for children and others to sleep if they get this terrible noise—which it is at about 400 feet—at any hour from 11 o'clock at night till 2 o'clock in the morning.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl, I have no method of checking heights. I take it that they are checked. I have seen reports in the Press to the effect stated by the noble Earl, but the requirements are laid down; they have been agreed, and, as I have said, they are tested from time to time, and I can only assume that they are being observed.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he would go into it a little further and see whether, in fact, the requirements are being observed, and whether anything can be done? Perhaps nothing can be done; I do not know.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the requirements laid down for take-off and landing at London Airport, Heath Row, are being observed by air lines?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, that is my information. I should like to repeat what I said: the adequacy of these requirements is kept continuously under review by analysing the results of tests and of operating experience, and by photographic analysis of operational take-offs and landings. I am told that that testing is continuous, and I can hardly imagine that it does not take into account the question of height.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether these tests are made by the interested companies running these aircraft or by Government Departments?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the tests are made by the Air Registration Board and the Ministry of Aviation, so far as British tests are concerned.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, it is not a question primarily of British tests. Is it not a fact that a large number of these big jets tend to get overladen by the operators, and is this not a very dangerous practice?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, if aircraft were overladen, it would indeed be a dangerous practice, but I have no information, which the noble Lord apparently has, that they are overladen. As I have said, if he will be good enough to let me have the names of his authorities, I will certainly pursue the matter.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the machines complained of principally are foreign machines and not British machines?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl we are dealing with long-range turbo-jets, which are either British or American. The same tests and the same procedures are pursued in regard to American machines as in regard to British machines.

ADEN GOVERNOR'S VISIT TO THE YEMEN
2.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they have any statement to make on the recent visit of the Governor of Aden to the Yemen.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the Governor's visit to the Yemen was a private one made on the invitation of Mr. Pirie-Gordon, the British Chargé d'Affaires at Taiz, with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty the Imam. The Governor was accompanied by Lady Luce. During their stay in the Yemen, which lasted from November 20 to 26, the Governor and Lady Luce were shown every courtesy by the Yemeni Government. The Governor was entertained by His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and met leading Yemeni Government notables and officials. On his arrival at Taiz, and on his departure, he exchanged telegrams of thanks and friendly greetings with His Majesty the Imam. Although this visit was private, Her Majesty's Government naturally hope that it will have brought benefit to Anglo-Yemeni relations.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which I am sure will give satisfaction to the whole House. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to add that I put this Question down merely for information, because I feel that our relations with the Yemen must affect very closely the problems which are to be debated by your Lordships this afternoon.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? He probably remembers that there was a Commission spoken of to define the frontier between Western Aden protectorates and the Yemen. Has that Commission met, and is an agreed frontier in existence? There was a reference to a de facto frontier, but I am concerned with an agreed frontier. That is the first
6
point. The second point is: are we in diplomatic relations with the Yemen?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, first of all I would thank the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, for what he said about the purpose of his Question. I understand very well that it is useful for the coming debate this afternoon. On the question of the frontiers, I well remember the proposed meeting. I think that some meetings took place but were inconclusive. I do not think there is at this moment any agreed frontier in certain places, but rather a de facto one. I am not saying that we are not clear where the frontier is, though it is still in dispute. On the second question, so far as I know the answer is, Yes: there are diplomatic relations, diplomatic contacts.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, but I think he will agree that in so far as there is not an agreed frontier there is always a danger of conflict.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Certainly. There are various questions outstanding which we need to clear up with the Yemen, and we can only hope that this visit, which was an informal and private one, will lead to that result.

COMMON LAND
2.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, 1958 (Cmnd. 462); and to move to resolve that this House would welcome the introduction by Her Majesty's Government of legislation based on the recommendations of the Commission at the earliest opportunity. The noble Viscount said My Lords, in putting down this Motion I am making no pretensions whatever at being an expert on commons. I do not quite know how one becomes an expert on commons. I have no doubt that there are noble and learned Lords in this House who have great knowledge of the law relating to commons, and it may well be that there are even lay Lords who have great knowledge of particular commons; but I think there are few people who would have the same degree of general knowledge as the members of this Commission, who have in the course of over two years visited over 100 of these commons

7
and who have, I think, considered evidence supplied from over 300 different sources. We must be grateful to the members of this Commission for the work that they did and, at the end of it, for producing such a readable, interesting and informative Report as they have.
I think there are few people who are qualified to contest their findings, at least as to facts. What are these findings? Some of the salient points are these. In the first place, let us take the area. It is not quite certain what the area is, but it seems to be at least 1¼ million acres, which is quite a lot. If all the commons were put together they would be equivalent to quite a large county—a county as big as the whole of Devonshire.
Then the Commission describe the great variety of land which is included in this area. There are great areas of moorland like Dartmoor, the steep hills of Cumberland, wooded areas like Epping Forest, metropolitan commons, village greens, small areas of roadside waste—all these come under the heading of commons which were looked into by the Commission. They point out that although a considerable portion of this area is not very fertile, at least 21,000 acres of it was ploughed up for food production during the war, and at least 400,000 acres of it could, according to the Forestry Commission be used for forestry. The Forestry Commission actually stated, I believe, that 800,000 acres were plantable, but that they considered that 400,000 acres could not be planted without injury to the interests either of food production or of the urban population's need of open spaces. But they point out that deterioration is going on now, particularly in the more fertile areas, and that if it is allowed to continue these areas will soon become covered with scrub and weeds and will be useless either for the purpose of production or of public recreation. As no doubt many of your Lordships know, that has happened in quite a number of places already.
Next, they deal with all the interests in these commons—interests which are actual and interests which are potential; the interests of the owners, the interests of the commoners, amenity interests, public recreational interests,
8
agricultural and forestry interests, the interests of those concerned with water supplies, the interests in certain places of the Services, the interests of scientific bodies concerned with botany and natural history, and even (this question is a little more controversial) the interests of local authorities who want to build houses on the areas of land which are not of the highest agricultural quality. They find that, although many of these interests may be mutually conflicting, they could to some extent all be reconciled, to the great advantage of all, by a system of management that is appropriate to the twentieth century instead of one which was appropriate to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
Long ago, when people built their own houses out of clay and wattle and odd pieces of wood and stones, it was essential for them to have supplies of these materials close to hand. In the days when they needed large areas of rough grazing to maintain their cattle and to keep themselves from starvation many of these traditional methods made a great deal of sense. But to-day, with a population perhaps fifteen or twenty times as great, with housing and food supplied in quite a different way and with 7 million motor cars touring round the country, many of them seeking places in which to park, these old traditional methods make very little sense.
The Commission noted with approval the dictum of the late Lord Jowitt in this House in 1955, that we were encumbered by a mass of Anglo-Saxon laws and that he wished to goodness someone would send those laws packing, bag and baggage. One is left with the impression that had all this land been in private ownership the law would have come down heavily on the owners long ago; and I have no doubt that had the law permitted it a good deal would have been put under supervision. For it is clear from reading the report of the Commission that, except where there is special legislation in force, there is a great deal of uncertainty and confusion and not a little ill-feeling and, as I have said, a great waste of land.
Having regard to the findings of the Commission on the facts alone, and the amount of land involved, and to the fact that the Government in 1955—a Government not very different from the

9
present Government—thought the matter sufficiently urgent to recommend the setting up of this Royal Commission, I am a little surprised that this Report has not attracted more Parliamentary attention, and I am a little disappointed that no reference was made to it in the gracious Speech. I believe that there was a debate in another place last February and that there has been one Starred Question here; but that, I think, is all.
I have no doubt that one of the reasons for the delay is that Her Majesty's Government have been consulting with various interests. That is a very good thing to do, because whatever is done and whatever changes in the law they may suggest I am sure will be unpopular in certain quarters. The trouble seems to be that any disputes and bad feelings which exist usually originated long ago, and when people have old grievances, whether well-founded or not, they rarely come together in a co-operative frame of mind.
I was reminded of that fact when, some months ago, it fell to my lot to take the chair at a meeting convened by my local county council in the fond hope that by getting a number of people together in regard to a particular common, some scheme could be evolved pending any legislation that might emerge from this Report. But we discovered that our hopes were not very well-founded. The dispute concerned an area of about 250 acres of land which had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Agriculture during the war and which, being fertile land, was particularly susceptible to deterioration. At the meeting it quickly became quite apparent that no one was at all ready to compromise.
The lord of the manor got up and stated quite categorically that he had a right of absolute freehold. The commoners said that their rights existed and that the lord of the manor was trying to filch their rights from them; and representative; of the local inhabitants said that whatever the state of feelings existing between the lord of the manor and the commoners, they had a complete right to go anywhere they liked on this land and that any fencing was irregular and improper. Yet legal officials of the county council, having gone into the matter as carefully as they could, were convinced that none of these statements was capable of absolute proof, at least on the evidence available, and that there would have to
10
be a determination by the courts. I hope and believe that wiser counsels have since prevailed, but at that time it certainly did not appear that anyone was really interested in getting a solution and that it was for somebody else to decide.
I instance this case only because, judging by the Report of the Commission, that does not seem to be an isolated instance, and therefore I am rather surprised that it is a little difficult to follow what the Commission recommend should be done. Possibly it is my fault for failing to understand, but the Commission seem to suggest that the two main new features ought to be the setting up of Special Commissioners to hear disputes and management committees to manage these commons. With all due deference, I should have thought that those were two very good ideas, because there are commons which are managed satisfactorily under special Acts of Parliament, and this would seem to me to be a form of process for getting the equivalent of Private Acts all round, and a process which is much cheaper and easier.
When, however, we try to discover how these disputes are to be submitted to the Commissioners and how the management committees are to be set up, it is a little difficult to follow the Report and to see (if I may put it ungrammatically) who does what, and when and who pays for what. The Commission seem to visualise the process in five or six stages which do not necessarily follow each other in order of time but may overlap. There is a stage when the claims are registered. There is the important stage when disputes are submitted to the Special Commissioners for arbitration; and then there is the stage when suggested schemes of management can be submitted. It appears that quite a number of people can submit schemes, independently of each other, schemes possibly having no relevance to each other. These schemes are then collated by the county council who forward them to the Minister with their comments. The Minister, after a great deal of consultation with various bodies, pieces the whole picture together; and, after a local inquiry, the result of his cogitations are embodied in a statutory instrument and submitted to Parliament.
It seems to me that the mere recital of all these stages suggests that even

11
with the maximum co-operation of all concerned it would probably be several years before the first management scheme could be put into operation. I would interpose at this moment one parenthesis. I noticed that in the debate in another place last February the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government indicated that he would welcome expressions of opinion from Parliament on a number of points; therefore I hope that my noble friend Lord Waldegrave will not consider it impertinent of me if I endeavour to make some response to that invitation. I should perhaps add that, although I am a member of the committees of both the County Councils Association and the Country Land Owners' Association who are dealing with these problems, I cannot claim to speak on their behalf. I do not know whether they will agree with what I have to say, but I know that both are on record as having stated categorically that they believe there is an urgent need for legislation as soon as possible. If I"drop any bricks" I shall probably hear about it later.
This seems to be the position. The Report appears to me to put the Government in this basic difficulty: that either they must wait until the whole registration process is complete; which according to the Commission's Report will not be for twelve years, before doing anything else, or they must do something of a provisional nature, something which might have to be changed later. I believe that to announce that in the first twelve years they would do nothing but register would be a counsel of despair. Even if the Government cut down the registration period to six years I should still not think it a good plan to do nothing else. I say that for two reasons. In the first place, I believe that it would put a premium on delay in registration and delay in making schemes. We are all, to some extent, the victims of inertia. If we have something difficult to do, and know that we have twelve years to do it, or even eight years, we tend to put it off—so I think solicitors are all very busy people. But, in addition to that, I think that obstructive and contentious people would deliberately suspend putting in their schemes and
12
plans until they had seen what other people were going to do.
My other reason against delay for twelve years is of a quite different nature. It concerns the public. I think it would be quite fatal to the intentions of this Report if we were to say to the public, as this Report says, that they ought to have rights of access to all commons, but did not define what those rights are. In my experience the public are, generally speaking, very law-abiding. I believe that in various parts of England there is increasing trespass and increasing hooliganism, but I think that at the moment that is not widespread. But if the whole position as to what they may do and what they may not do is left vague they will begin making assumptions. And when we have 7 million or 8 million (no doubt it will soon be 8 million) cars, and that enormous number of motorists touring around without being quite certain about what they may and what they may not do, I think they will start making assumptions, assumptions which it will be extremely difficult to correct later.
For these reasons, I would most respectfully ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not consider adapting for this purpose some of the principles that have already been adopted in the Town and Country Planning Act procedure. Under that Act, as your Lordships no doubt know, the very complicated development plans that are made by the planning authorities have to be submitted for revision every five years. I would suggest that the Government should aim at having all important commons covered by one scheme or another within three years of the appointed day, but that those schemes should be subject to review at periods of five years, at least until the registration period is over. If I am told that three years is a ridiculously short time in which to make any registration claims I should like to point out that under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the ordinary citizen was given no more than two years to register what are known as his Part VI claims; that is to say, claims for loss of development rights. There may be some legal reason why commoner's rights require a very much longer time to register than the ordinary rights over private property, but I wonder whether there would be any

13
real hardship if they were given not only a slightly longer initial period in which to make their first registration claims but also a further period of five or ten years to make later claims which it might be too difficult to discover and put in earlier. I have no doubt whatever that this idea will be"shot down" as indeed, I sometimes feel, any other scheme of a positive nature is sure to be. I would, however, claim the following advantages for it.
In the first place, it would relieve the Government from the almost impossible task of trying to achieve perfection and finality all in one go. I think, secondly, that it would act as a very much-needed incentive to expedition in submitting registration claims and management schemes. Thirdly, I believe that it would tend to concentrate attention on those commons which are positively crying out for decision and action. I speak from great ignorance, but I believe that if we went through the list of commons we should find that quite a number are controlled under Private Acts or as regulated commons on which the public have certain defined rights. Although there might be some defects, these commons could well be left alone for the first five years. But I think we should find other cases where nobody knows whether he may or may not put up a fence or repair an existing fence, whether the public have rights, or what those rights are. There might even be considerable doubt whether it is a common at all. If we are going to leave such places for a long period without some form of control we shall certainly invite deterioration of the land and quite possibly breaches of the peace as well.
I cannot pretend that I think any scheme of that sort would succeed unless the county councils were given a much more positive rôle than seems to be envisaged the Report. I am not dealing with county boroughs, because the question of urban commons is of a different nature. According to the Report, the county council appears to act in the first two years partly as a registration office and partly as a sort of post office to transmit schemes to the Ministry. I think that if that were to be their sole duty it might well mean in certain cases that it would be just two years wasted. I can see no reason why the county council should not from the very start at least
14
be empowered to submit and circulate draft maps on their own, as they did in the case of footpaths. The county councils have a good deal of knowledge based on their planning surveys, and they have Professor Dudley Stamp's admirable Appendix to help them. I have no doubt that these maps would all be hotly contested, but that would at least start the ball rolling.
Then I think that the county councils should have the power, not of vetoing the schemes put up by other bodies but of commenting on them—and not only to the Minister but to the people who submit them. That process might well have the result that a number of schemes which, although they might not be frivolous, might be foolish, would not require to be considered by the Minister. It would be very foolish, for example, for a body to submit schemes which were based on assumptions that were contested and could have no validity until there had been a determination by a court. I think it would be foolish, for example, to submit schemes which took no account of the processes of nature—and there is considerable ignorance on that score in many urban localities.
I also think it might be foolish to submit schemes which take no account of finance. Having been a member of local authorities for many years I may perhaps say, without giving any offence, that the sort of scheme which a local authority will put up if they have to pay for it themselves may be very different from that which they would put up if somebody else had to pay for it. And if the county council were selected, in a number of cases as the appropriate body to pay, I feel that they might at least be given a certain right of protest. I believe that finance is going to play a considerable part in this operation, particularly if we are to reclaim these commons, a number of which are now little more than repositories for old ironmongery.
What I hope, then, my Lords, is that the county councils would acquire in this way, not power but influence, and I think that if they did that the Minister's task might be made a great deal easier. I feel that then, in a slow and unspectacular way, there would be a gradual improvement in this thorny problem. I may say, that I am a considerable believer in the

15
truth of that old French proverb, which says that"Nothing endures like the provisional". I have put down a Motion asking for your Lordships' support for this Report and it may be thought a little odd that I should have spent so much time talking about its defects, or what appear to me to be its defects. But the explanation is quite simple: I want to see this Report implemented, and I do not think it ever will be unless the drill, or what I understand to be the drill, is greatly fortified. In any case, I am not asking your Lordships to endorse my criticisms: I am asking your Lordships only to agree with both the County Councils Association and the Country Landowners' Association that legislation is really highly desirable, and that action should be taken as soon as possible. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House would welcome the introduction by Her Majesty's Government of legislation based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Common Land, 1958 (Cmnd. 462) at the earliest opportunity.—(Viscount Gage.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think everyone is under a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount for having brought this matter to the attention of the House. The noble Viscount said that there are no experts other than members of the Committee, but I imagine that there are also those experts who gave evidence before the Committee; and he is one of them. It is quite evident from his speech that he knows at least something about this subject, which I agree is more than can be said about most people. May I say at the outset that I hope he will not press his Motion; because, while many of us would agree that this is an urgent matter and requires legislation, we should not necessarily agree that it requires legislation on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission. The noble Viscount's Motion does, in fact, tie us down to those recommendations which he has spent a good deal of time this afternoon opposing. So that, while we can all, I hope, agree that legislation is urgently necessary, I trust that he will either amend his Motion or will not press it.
16
I should like also to thank the Commission for the work they have done. They have spent two and a half years on this job, and they have prepared a most informative and learned Report. Three members of the Commission have actually added to the Report by writing learned articles themselves: the Chairman on the legal aspect of commons; Dr. Hoskins on their history; and Dr. Stamp on the location of commons. The Commission have seen hundreds of witnesses; they have spent, I think it is, something like 90 days hearing evidence; they have had evidence from 156 associations; and generally it has been a monumental task. I therefore feel that, while thanking them, thanks alone are not sufficient. The best thanks we can give to a Commission is to take note of their Report. It is now a year and a half since they made their Report, and, so far as I know, no action has yet been taken on it. I do not know even whether the Government have given it any consideration. If they have, they have been very silent, and none of us knows anything at all about it; indeed, it looks as though no action is proposed to be taken in the forthcoming Session of Parliament.
As the noble Viscount said, this was regarded as an urgent matter in 1955, because in that year a Royal Commission was set up. I feel that there ought to be some kind of trade union for members of Royal Commissions for their protection; because they give an immense amount of their time and labours to public work, and it is most disconcerting for them to find, after all they have done, and having prepared their Report, that there is only dead silence. I suppose that the shelves in your Lordships' Library are full of Reports of Royal Commissions and other Commissions which have been wholly ignored; and I think that the sooner members of Royal Commissions get together and do something for their protection the better.
I have mentioned the great detail with which the members of this Commission have investigated the matter of commons, and I cannot help feeling that the result of all that has been that they have somehow"missed the wood for the trees." This is a Report in the

17
greatest possible detail, with recommendations in the greatest possible detail. I do not propose to take up the time of the House in discussing the Report in any detail—the noble Viscount has given us, I think, a very accurate statement of what the Report is all about, and of the problems and difficulties. In a nutshell, there are some 1½ million acres of land which are subject to certain individual rights—grazing rights, rights of estover, rights of piscary and all sorts of other rights. No doubt the noble Viscount has a long list of these rights, which are hardly ever exercised nowadays because nobody knows who is entitled to them. In the meantime, this land is going to waste, and every year that goes by makes the position more and more difficult. We know that most of this land could be put to effective use if only somebody could gel: hold of it. We had that experience during the war, and we know that it could be used. Furthermore—and here I would remind your Lordships of the debate we had on housing last week—we know that every year we shall need more and more land for housing purposes, and that most of that land has to come from agriculture. Whilst I am not suggesting that common land should be devoted to housing. I do say that if we could divert the common land to a useful purpose it would go a long way towards making up for the loss of agricultural land which we are bound to incur in coming years in order to provide housing for the people.
What is the solution? Frankly, I do not think that the recommendations of the Report are a solution at all. I think that the Commission have been inclined to accept the status quo, to build on it and to perpetuate the difficulties in which we find ourselves. The fact is that, broadly speaking, all these rights are to-day out of date, just as the copyhold system became out of date and was abolished by the Law of Property Act, 1926. I think that the time has come for a new Law of Property Act. My suggestion would be a simple one. With respect to the noble Viscount, who suggested that we should emulate what we did in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, I would say that I think that we can deal with this in a simpler way. If it is true that the majority of those who are entitled to rights are not known,
18
in spite of the efforts of the Commission to discover some of them; if it is not clear what these rights are, and if, in the meantime, the land is going to waste, is it not the sensible thing that this land should go to the community? I should like to suggest that at a certain date all common lands which have been defined and which local authorities know about should become the property of the county council or county borough.
There would be persons who have rights of some value. I would agree that they should be entitled to put in a claim—the noble Viscount suggested within two years; we might make it three, if you like, or five. Anyone who claims that he is damnified by the taking over of this land by the local authority should have the right to put in a claim. I do not think that it would be in the public interest that existing rights of people should be allowed to continue. Even in the best of cases—in the case of grazing rights, the right of certain people to graze the land at certain times of the year—this is not the most efficient method of using the land. Therefore I would not restore the rights to the individuals; but if they could establish that they had these rights and that they were suffering as the result of the taking over of the land by the local authorities, then they would be entitled to compensation.
That compensation could be assessed in the usual way; if necessary, by the Lands Tribunal. In that way, I think that nobody could complain that his rights had been expropriated. The land would then go back to the local authorities, to be used, broadly speaking, in the way in which it had been intended that it should be used in the past, but it would be open to a local authority to establish that it could be used in a more effective manner. The scrub and waste and the trees which have grown could be cleared and the land used for cultivation. The Report gives certain examples of where such land had been very productive during the war and it could be made productive again. A large part of the common land could be used for afforestation. Generally speaking, we should be getting real value for any compensation we might be called upon to pay.
I think that this is a case where the Government might pay a proportion of the compensation. I think that it should

19
be shared between the local authorities and the Government. But I do not visualise that compensation will be high. The Report makes it clear that the majority of people who are entitled to rights cannot even be found. It may be that if there is compensation floating around a number of them may appear, but they will still have to establish that they have suffered financially as a result of the taking over of the land, and I think that in the majority of cases it would be difficult to establish that.
As the noble Viscount put it, registration would be a long-drawn-out and complicated exercise which, in the end, might not be at all satisfactory. I think that the Commission have greatly underestimated the administrative difficulties. They say that the local authorities, to whom the task of registration and investigation will be referred, are accustomed this sort of work and can take it in their stride. I doubt very much whether the majority of local authorities could take a matter of this kind in their stride. It would mean the creating of some kind of special organisation to carry out this registration.
The Commission also recommend that the Land Registry should be used for this purpose. But anyone who has experience of the Land Registry at the present time knows how overwhelmed they are. It takes months before one can get land registered at the Land Registry. Yet the fact is that only a relatively few areas in the country are subject to compulsory registration. It is an urgent matter that the whole of the land of this country should be subject to compulsory registration, and I would put that as a very high priority. But at the present moment it is unthinkable. To imagine that this colossal additional task can be imposed on the Land Registry in the foreseeable future is fanciful. So, in my view, the recommendations of the Commission are not workable.
I am sorry that they should have come to conclusions of this kind. I can only suggest that the extraordinary complexity of the matter must have caused them to misconceive the right solution which, in my view, is staring them in the face. I suggest to the Government that they might well consider the idea of the acquisition of common lands through the local authorities and so enable the
20
local authorities to use this land for the best possible purpose. If they fail to do this, then the situation will be worse and worse as time goes on, and I shudder to think what the state of much of this waste land, as some of it is called, and common land, as other of it is called, will be in, say, ten or twelve years' time. I put forward this solution in the hope that it will receive favourable consideration.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I have an interest in commons which forces me to take part in this debate and to express my hope that your Lordships will accept the Motion moved by the noble Viscount. The National Trust, of which I have been an official for many years, owns 40,000 acres of common land, which I am glad to say, under their Act, can never be put to those profitable uses to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount is not really serious.
VISCOUNT ESHER: Yes, I am serious.
LORD SILKIN: I should not dream of suggesting that any hand should be laid on National Trust land or any land which is held in the possession of, say, the local authorities, like metropolitan and other commons or Epping Forest. I was really referring to the land described by the noble Viscount; that is, land which is of uncertain ownership and with uncertain rights.
VISCOUNT ESHER: The moral of the noble Lord's intervention is that the rest of the commons of England must be taken over by the National Trust. The National Trust have no doubt whatever of the deterioration which is taking place on these commons. In their evidence before the Royal Commission they made it clear that during the last ten years, or even less, changes have taken place that have reduced beautiful open spaces, with rides of cropped grass, to a maze of thicket and scrub. Maidenhead Thicket is a good example of this; and it belongs to the National Trust. Half of it is covered with impenetrable jungle; the other half was taken over by the local authority under the plan of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and was bulldozed during the

21
war into a featureless plain of arable land. Everybody knows that the grassy glades and paths which are so attractive to the public are rapidly disappearing; and, as the National Trust said in their evidence before the Royal Commission, it is the disappearance of rabbits which has accelerated this process.
The Royal Commission in their Report repeat this lamentable fact and say:
"All too often the pleasing, well-cropped sward has been followed, when the grazing ceased, by an untidy mess of bracken and bramble."
They point out that insufficient grazing prevents the public from properly enjoying the land. An article on the Sussex Downs, which appeared on November 19 in Country Life, says:
"Even the decline of the sheep has been hardly more important to the vegetation of the Downs than the sharp reduction of the rabbits."
The fact is that we have thrown away this cheap and efficient labour for a handful of silver. I will not comment upon the disgraceful way in which this was done by the introduction for commercial purposes of a terrible disease, a thing almost as shameful as shooting down deer by night under the light of a searchlight. The balance of nature has been wantonly upset.
It is true that, so far, these moneymakers have not everywhere cut down the hedgerows and the wayside trees which they would like to cut down in order to gain a little more ground for turnips and make England look like Northern France. I have a strong suspicion that in this sporting community they will never be allowed to plough up the golf courses and the racecourses on which obviously such fine crops could be grown. But the more defenceless and summer charms of our lovely English countryside—the birds, the butterflies and the bees—are being killed off by toxic sprays to benefit the growing of brussels sprouts, and maybe to poison the people who subsequently eat them. Jays and magpies, too, are being what is called"kept down" by game preservers, although they rid us of 80 per cent. of the eggs of wood pigeons, of which there are now, as I think everybody will agree, far too many.
On the Chiltern Hills where I live I used to have a large park which was
22
kept in order beautifully by rabbits. My son, who lives there now, has seen that park fall into shabby scrub and coarse grass, and has had to spend a great deal of money fencing that park and grazing it with cattle. Well, he is very lucky to have enough money to do that. I myself live in more humble circumstances on a common which is much loved by the public. Every Saturday and Sunday the prosperous proletariat of the Welfare State motor down to enjoy this lovely heath that the rabbits used to keep so well. Surely, then, someone must restore, with either money or labour, what is one of the most popular picnic places within forty miles of London, where children can play in safety, where parents can sit in the sun, where dogs can run without leads, and where Lord Silkin has not dug up the countryside. In my eyes it is a charming sight.
A very different view is taken by the National Farmers' Union, in a document that no doubt most of your Lordships have received. After suggesting that a rash of housing should be allowed to encroach on common land by the usual temptation of offering poor commoners compensation, they give their views about the public which draw a very different picture from the one that I see every week-end. I should like to read it to your Lordships:
"It would be idle to pretend, however, that farmers are optimistic about the way in which less responsible members of the community will conduct themselves on commons, or about the effectiveness with which the code of behaviour can be enforced. Our experience of public conduct on farm land in the National Parks has shown that while members of recognised amenity bodies are familiar with the country code and generally zealous in its fulfilment, this does not apply to large and increasing numbers of townsfolk whose activities include destruction of fences, letting dogs run loose among stock, lighting fires and trampling on growing crops.… We find nothing in the Commission's Report to suggest how this code could be properly enforced; and while we wholeheartedly endorse the view that much more needs to be done in educating the general public … we cannot but believe that sterner application of the law and rigorous systems of patrols may be necessary in some of those areas where urban and rural communities live in close but not always harmonious proximity."
That really means stop the picnics, tie up the dogs and introduce a policeman. A great dislike of their urban fellow countrymen seems to me to be obvious in this document. But in point of fact the

23
public, hungry for the sights and sounds of the countryside, do no harm whatever to the common on which I live. Never-the less, it is becoming a wilderness, not because of the public, but because of the neglect. What are we making of this lovely island in which we live?
I do not pretend for a moment that all the 85,000 members of the National Trust are so detached from money values that they will agree with what I say. A lot of statistics can be hurled about to show the loss of food that was caused in the old days by rabbits. But"man cannot live by bread alone", as is proved by the fact that no one has yet, in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, ploughed up the large spaces of Hyde Park.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, I do not mind his saying this twice, but he has now said it three times. What does he mean by ploughing up land? I have never ploughed up any land in my life.
VISCOUNT ESHER: To"put it to profitable use". I know that phrase well, and it in fact means ploughing it up. No doubt I shall be told that rabbits are vermin. These facile definitions, whether they are used by farmers or, as I have been told, sometimes by politicians, are both inaccurate and insulting. Every child knows how charming rabbits are, though masses of children have now never seen one. And every dog knows that his walk is spoilt by having nothing to chase. I repeat, my Lords, what are we making of this lovely island in which we live? In Shakespeare's time it was"a precious stone set in the silver sea". Now it is becoming a rubbish heap surrounded by car parks. It is true that the rabbits are coming back, and I welcome their return. It may take them a long time to defeat their mercenary enemies, and meanwhile it is the duty of the Government to take on their unpaid work and to extract from this Report, as suggested by the noble Viscount, a scheme that will preserve in this small island every oasis of wild and beautiful land both from commercial exploitation and from undue neglect.
3.47 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, though like the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, though perhaps not like the noble Viscount, Lord Esher,
24
I cannot claim to be an expert on commons, I should like to welcome very warmly the Motion on the Report of the Royal Commission on Commons which the noble Viscount has rightly tabled for discussion to-day. Your Lordships have very often during recent months been concerned with debates on the Report of other Royal Commissions, and I am afraid that our general experience as to the value of these Commissions as a constitutional device for the solution of difficult and intractable problems has not been a very happy one, in that the Reports of the Commission have tended all too often to be like those thunderstorms which are traditionally supposed to clear the air but which in practice seem merely further to increase the atmospheric tension. The Report, however, which has been produced by Sir Ivor Jennings and his colleagues does, I think, appear to anyone who reads it, to be a welcome exception to that rule, and I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept this Motion. For if the Commission have not necessarily found—and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thinks they have not found—a complete solution to the extremely thorny questions with which they had to deal, they have at any rate, I am sure, gone a long way to clear all our minds and point to some extent, at any rate, the way which we should go.
I am sure that most of us, when we think of the word"common", have a picture of those commons which most of us know best, those small open spaces with commoners' rights, in the middle of enclosed countrysides, often in the near neighbourhood or even within the precincts of great cities—areas roved over and loved by the public, but often to the detriment of rights of commoners who still exist. If indeed, the 1½ million acres of land in this country which have been subject from time immemorial to these commoners' privileges were of that character, no doubt the problem presented to the Government and to all of us would be something which anyone might boggle at. But, my Lords, fortunately, as the Commission make perfectly clear at the very outset of their Report, that would be a travesty of the facts. By far the greater part of the common lands of Britain—something approaching 1 million acres out of the 1½ million acres which is the total acreage of common

25
lands—is to be found in the more mountainous and remote districts of our Island; great stretches of land to the North and West of Britain (I am quoting from the Commission's Report), hill sheep farming areas of the Pennines, the Lake District, the heart of Wales, the uplands of Devon and Cornwall, Dartmoor, Exmoor and so on. I found it very difficult in reading the Report, to find out the exact relationship of these greater common lands, if I may so call them, to the others to which I have already referred. We are told in paragraph 64 that in England the total area of common land is 1,054,661 acres, out of which what I have called"greater commons" are 783,000 acres. In Wales the total acreage is given as 450,000 acres; but no figure is given as to the proportion of the larger to the smaller commons.
I think we can take it, broadly speaking, that the larger common lands, by which I mean commons of individually more than 1,000 acres, in England and Wales are about 1 million acres. I do not say that these great empty stretches of land do not present their own problems. Obviously they do. No doubt they might be made greater use of by farmers if proper schemes could be devised to enable commoners to work together for their common benefit. But considerations of that kind are not insoluble, if the commoners can be persuaded to co-operate. It may very well be that, if nothing has been done up to now, it is merely because it has never occurred to the commoners to get together for a purpose of this kind. Anyway, these far off places, even with the advent of the motor car, are not likely to be greatly troubled by incursions of the general public, except by occasional visits by ramblers, to whom it may be possible to appeal by notices and so on; and evidently in the view of the Commission, it should be possible to tackle this problem of greater common lands—and that is two-thirds of the total problem—without engendering too much heat and friction, and so deal with what is, at any rate in area, by far the largest part.
There remain the smaller commons, the commons of 1,000 acres and downwards, which are scattered about along the length and breadth of the land. For them the Commission have devised plans
26
—the plans referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—which certainly seem practical. If they err (and I think this is Lord Silkin's view), they err on the side of the commoners. These smaller commons undoubtedly do present immense difficulties. For one thing they nearly always coincide—and the Report emphasises this—with areas of poor soil, which, in the words of the Report, have repelled the farmer throughout the ages. Moreover, of course, they are extremely heterogeneous, both in their nature and in their situation, and therefore not suitable for any single standardised use.
Nor are those admirable people, who are in entire agreement as to the general principle that a common should be put to some useful purpose, by any means in equal agreement as to what that useful purpose should be. Some want them devoted to agriculture, which means, in effect, closing them and excluding the public from them. Others want them used for the enjoyment of the people, which means general access of the public to them and their conversion into playing fields and so on. Others want them built over, since they are, as we have already said, situated on poor soil, which is not, in the view of those people, suitable for anything else. And finally there are those—with whom I have considerable sympathy—like the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, who are especially interested in the fauna, flora, ecology and general beauties of our country, and who would really, in their heart of hearts, like them left exactly as they are.
The competing claims of all these widely differing objects will, of course, have to be fought out in due course. But the first thing, clearly is—and the Commission recognise that—to find out what are common lands and what are not. That seems at present extremely doubtful. And for this purpose as I understand it, they have proposed immediately on the passing of necessary legislation that each county council in England and Wales should set up a registry of claims as to what land is subject to common rights. I should have thought that that was clearly a very sensible proposal, and indeed a necessary prerequisite to any further action of that kind, whatever it may be.
I confess, with the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, that when I came to the

27
detailed features of the proposal I had certain doubts. The Commission's proposal, as he defined it, is that these registers should be open for eight years for the registration of claims, and for a further four years during which no further claims could be registered but objections could be lodged; that makes twelve years in all. I must say that I wonder, with the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, whether so long a period as that is really necessary. The existence of the registers is to be widely publicized; notices are to be put up at town halls and on the doors of village churches and anywhere else where people are likely to read them, to ensure that everybody knows of the existence of the registers and those who are making them. Is it really necessary, in such circumstances as those, to keep the registers open for twelve long years before we go further in building up the future administration?
It is not necessary, after all, for this purpose that we should know who every commoner is. What is necessary to know is whether there are any commoners at all. Once you have found that out, you have gone a considerable distance in planning your further policy. If some more commoners turn up later, within a certain period which might be fixed, well and good But it is possible to act, as it were, with a quorum of commoners. I would have thought that possibly the three years which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, suggested is too short: but four or five years, at any rate, should be ample for that purpose.
I am also rather doubtful about the proposition, if I have got it right, that anyone who makes a claim may be regarded as having established it unless somebody else protests. It seems to leave the door very wide open. I realise that the Commission have tried to guard against what they recognise as this danger by proposing, in paragraph 264, that it should be a criminal offence to register a claim without just cause. But, my Lords, this would be very difficult to prove in practice. I cannot help feeling that the claimant making the claim should be forced to produce some positive evidence, even if only oral, of the justice of the claim he makes. But, with those powers, I believe the proposal for the register to be perfectly sound, and I
28
believe that the county council is the right body to be in charge. It is not too remote and yet not too small and parochial. In cases where no owner and no commoners can be found, I understand that the common is to be transferred to the Public Trustee, and by him to the local authority. That may seem at first sight rather arbitrary; but with no owner and no commoners there really does not seem to be any alternative, if the common is not to become a sort of no-man's-land with no one having a duty or obligation to keep it in proper order.
All these proposals, and the ancillary ones—the appointment of Commons Commissioners, the appointment of assessors to assist them, the drawing up of schemes by commoners, and so on, seem sensible and worthy of serious consideration by the Government and everybody else. All that, I hope, may be regarded in this House, too, as relatively non-controversial: but, before I sit down I should like to say something, very briefly, about two proposals in the Report which I believe are not uncontroversial and which many of us might well regard as revolutionary.
The first is a recommendation, in paragraph 314, that all common land should be henceforth open to the public as of right. That means a far-reaching change in the whole basis of common land and common rights as they have been understood for many centuries in this country. Never, so far as I know, has common land meant land to which all the common people of England and Wales have a right of access. Nor has it meant (here I think was the fallacy of Lord Silkin's proposals) land that is owned by the commoners. The noble Lord said that if no common owners were to be found, the land should be taken over by the local authority. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think common land means land which may be privately owned or may be publicly owned, but on which a restricted number of local people have certain clearly defined and limited rights in common. I believe that is what it means.
A large part of the earlier chapters of the Report is devoted to saying to what abuses completely free access by the public to such lands would inevitably lead. Paragraph 100 says that they rarely

29
fail to leave litter about. Paragraph 101 speaks of a
"deliberate 'dumping of builders' refuse, old beds and similar things.'"
Paragraph 103 says
"If litter on commons increases with the coming of the public, so, too, does the risk of fire."
Paragraph 104 speaks of the unauthorised parking of cars, and adds:
"where cars go there is also the danger that lorries will follow."
Paragraph 108 says:
"Where cars and other motor traffic cross a common, sheep and cattle can no longer be safely turned out to pasture."
These are only a few of the warnings which have been given by the Commission itself as to the dangers of the free and unrestricted access of the public to common land, and especially to common lands which are devoted to productive purposes.
I therefore thought it extremely surprising, having read all that, to find as one of the main recommendations of the Commission that access by the public to all common lands should be henceforth absolutely free. I entirely agree—I have no doubt that all of us will—as to the evils which might flow from any further private encroachment on common lands. I certainly think that the most vigorous steps ought to be taken to prevent this by whatever means are necessary. But I suggest that it is equally necessary to protect commons and commoners against the more evil results of free public access; otherwise the last state of those commons will be much worse than the first. Unless the local authority interests itself in enforcing its own by-laws, these by-laws are only too liable to be neglected. Therefore some provision—and here I strongly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Gage—tc ensure that the local authority does its job seems urgently necessary in ally Bill which may be introduced to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission on this particular aspect.
Lastly—I am sorry to have kept the House so long—I come to the one other revolutionary proposal, or what I should call a revolutionary proposal, of which, from the point of view of the public itself, the advantages, I confess, seem to be extremely doubtful. It is to be found
30
in paragraph 329. That paragraph begins:
"… in addition to the public rights of access for air and exercise which would extend over all registered common land, a local authority would be able to undertake a scheme for the management and improvement of a particular common to enhance public enjoyment still further."
Then it goes on to enunciate the kind of thing which the Commissioners had in mind, such as
"the laying out of children's playgrounds and sports fields"—
that sounds all right—
"including golf courses, … the construction of car parks, public shelters, sports pavilions, public lavatories and any other buildings … that might be thought desirable …"—
that means, presumably, construction by the local authority. The local authority should also have the power to fence the land either temporarily or permanently. If the commoners objected to this, which is indeed a considerable invasion of their rights, the local authority would have the right to seek additional powers to limit or acquire the commoners' rights compulsorily. That might well mean, in plain words, as I read it, a new Inclosure Act on a vast scale; and the fact that this inclosure was to be carried out by a public body and not a private person does not, from the point of view of the commoner, make it any better. Moreover, if it is not offensive to say so, though I have the highest admiration for local authorities and for the efficiency with which they carry out many of their multifarious activities, I am afraid that neither correct judgment on aesthetics nor passionate attachment to the liberties of the individual citizen have ever appeared to me to be their strongest point.
I hope, therefore, that the Government, whatever decision they take, will not confer upon local authorities quite such drastic powers on this particular matter as those which appear to have been envisaged by the Commission. I hope, at any rate, that there may be some power to appeal from their decisions. On the whole, many of us would, I think, prefer the old overgrowth of brambles to the new overgrowth of public lavatories. But having said that, I hope that not merely will the Government take note of the Commission's Report (that was Lord Silkin's point), but that they will take some definite steps on the broad

31
lines of the Report, especially for the purpose of setting up a register. Surely, here is a chance not only to deal with the thorny question of common lands which has plagued us for so long, but to redeem the reputation of Royal Commissions, which has become sadly tarnished in late years. For this, I am afraid, the present Government, like other Governments in the past, must bear their share of blame. It is an opportunity that I hope the Government will not neglect. If it is not grasped, it is not too much. I think, to say that another chance of the same kind may not occur for many years. For that reason, I should like warmly to support the Motion which the noble Viscount has moved.
4.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to join my thanks to those which have been so well expressed by other speakers in the debate this afternoon to the noble Viscount, for having given us the opportunity of discussing this important and interesting Report. If he has done nothing else he will have given us the benefit of one of those all too rare, but always delicious, interventions by my noble friend Lord Esher, who, as always, with his witty but most forthright utterances delighted your Lordships this afternoon. I am not sure that I have quite that enthusiasm for the rabbit which appeared from his speech, but otherwise I found myself greatly in sympathy with what he said.
This Report is, I think, one of the most interesting and valuable Reports which has even been produced by a Royal Commission. I was very glad indeed to hear my noble friend Lord Silkin refer to the admirable additional reports in the Appendices, which make most attractive reading, and the valuable commentaries by my old colleague in the University of London (now, of course, at Cambridge) Sir Ivor Jennings. I entirely agree with what was said as to the dilatoriness of Her Majesty's Government in having so far shown no interest of any kind in the Report, at any rate in public, and with the hope that, as a result of what is said this afternoon, some steps towards implementing the Report will be taken fairly quickly. I believe that there would be quite a number of people ready
32
to join a trade union of members of Royal Commissions whose work on so many occasions has led to no tangible result; although, to do this present Government justice, I must say that they have done more in the way of implementing the Reports of some Royal Commissions than has been done in the past.
The essential element of course—and I am glad that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, pointed it out in the speech to which we have just listened—although it is merely a procedural matter, is to make an authoritative register of the common lands of the country. That has been one of the important things lacked by all who have been interested in this subject in the past. I do not altogether agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on this question. I believe that it would be perfectly well within the bounds of the county councils to do this work. The problem of rights of way is in some ways even more complicated than the actual problem of the extent of the commons. My noble friend's own Bill put upon county councils, under the National Parks Act, a duty to carry out with expedition and efficiency the mapping of footpaths and rights of way; and there can be no doubt at all that those maps which now exist in county halls up and down the country are of the greatest value. I am quite sure that a similar kind of registration could be carried out reasonably easy by the very same people who did that work on footpaths so successfully only a few years ago.
This Report, more fundamentally, reflects the conflict which has been going on so long that"the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" between those who were anxious to get the commons into their own ownership and those who wished to maintain their rights over the commons. Your Lordships will all be familiar with the saying, the exact words of which escape my memory, to the effect that in the old times the law was against the man who stole the goose from off the common; but it has not been sufficiently against the man who stole the common from the goose. I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, who pointed out that in that process almost all the really good

33
fertile land which was common land got into the hands of people who took the commons away from the geese—a different kind of geese, on the second occasion, from those with whom we were concerned in thinking of the old saying.
The really important point is that in fact these commons provide the last reserves which are open to the great urban populations of this country for recreation in God's open air; and it is therefore of the greatest importance that the Commission have come down, and come down so emphatically, on the side of not allowing any further encroachment upon them. In Chapter IX, which is a summary of their recommendations, they point out that these commons are the last reserve of uncommitted land in England and Wales and ought to be preserved in the public interest; and it seems to me that that statement, which is of the greatest importance, should receive the emphatic endorsement of your Lordships' House and of Her Majesty's Government. It is for this reason that the amenities societies for whom the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has spoken this afternoon—the National Trust, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, in particular, all of which gave evidence before the Royal Commission—have received this Report with such enthusiasm. I am sure that they would all wish us to express our great appreciation to Sir Ivor Jennings and his colleagues for the admirable Report which they have presented.
The Report, however, does not stop at that. It well realises that the rights of the public here are not incompatible with the reasonable use, and even the development, of much of this common land; and a very large part of the Report, as I read it, is taken up with proposals for enabling schemes to be promulgated by those who have pro-prietorial interests in this land. I am sure that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is quite right in saying that fundamentally, from the legal point of view, the land in most cases belongs to the lords of the manor and that the commoners, neighbouring farmers and others, have rights over this land, though not quite so clearly defined in many cases, perhaps, as he has suggested.
34
I think it is most important that in so far as this land is capable of being used it should not be lost to the community, and it seems to me that one of the most valuable aspects of the Report of the Royal Commission is that it makes very valuable proposals (as they seem to me) for putting forward schemes for the improvement of this land. I may be wrong, but I did not quite agree with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, suggesting that nothing of this kind could be done for twelve years. I do not read the Report in that way at all. It appears to me that as soon as the local authority establish their register any person who wishes to put forward a scheme can immediately submit to the local authority that the land concerned should be registered, and it can then go on to the register.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not think I said that the Report postulated that nothing could be done for twelve years. I was saying that one of the difficulties which confronted Her Majesty's Government was the alternative of either doing nothing for the period of twelve years or doing something of a provisional nature. I said that in my opinion the Report was obscure as to exactly how the Commission envisage the answer to that question.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount may be right, but it seems to me that anybody wishing to put forward a scheme for the improvement of a common could get it into operation in a much shorter period, if he had the keenness to get on with it. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord as to defining the rights of the public over these commons, a point made also by the noble Marquess. I felt that he had rather misunderstood the Report or perhaps had read it differently from me; because I do not read it as suggesting that the Commission wish to give the public completely unrestricted access to every common throughout the country. In fact, I should have thought it was perfectly clearly implicit in their proposals for schemes that that could not be so; because a scheme for the effective use of a common could not be made if the public have to be given completely unrestricted access subject to no conditions and no kind of control.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I believe the words used were:
"We recommend that all common land should be open to the public as of right but subject to the general conditions set out below in paragraphs 318 and 319",
which is a reference to the National Parks plan. My point was on the basis that it is for one person to apply for the application of the conditions. That is one thing. But if it is just a body of commoners, who probably are not very close to each other, who have to ask for the application of these conditions, probably nothing will in fact be done. Everybody's job is nobody's job. That is what I meant, and I thought that in practice it would mean completely free access.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Marquess may be right. I do not read it in that sense. We have to take it that at the present time the ordinary person who is not a commoner has no right on the common. There are metropolitan commons and others, commons owned by the National Trust, to which the public have rights of access. But the ordinary Common Law of England does not give people the right on to a common at all. I think we have to read it in that way. The Royal Commission are proposing that in future this last reservoir of land of this kind should, subject to reasonable terms and conditions, in fact be thrown open to the general public. It is these"reasonable terms and conditions" which may have partly to be laid down by local authorities which are given some kind of control. I think that the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Silkin was a valuable one. One could hardly expect the present Government to accept it as it stands, but clearly, in connection with the noble Viscount's suggested need to define the rights of the public (which I am sure that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, would agree with), the local authority would be a very suitable authority to be brought in to define and control these rights of public access which I should have thought everyone would have agreed should not be completely undefined and restricted.
I think that those are the most important points. There are, as one would expect, a number of points of detail which, if a Bill were introduced, one
36
would like to see dealt with by the Government in that Bill. I would suggest that one of some importance was proposed by the noble Viscount: the registering authority should have the same sort of duty as it has in respect of footpaths and rights of way under the National Parks Act, itself taking the initiative and setting out the known commons on its own register in the first instance instead of waiting for others to come and make proposals. I believe that the Royal Commission suggest that it should have the right. I would go much further and put the duty of doing so upon it.
Another small point is that the courts of quarter session have handled the appeals in connection with footpath cases, and so far as my own experience is concerned (perhaps I have a certain interest as a chairman of quarter sessions) I felt that my own court had dealt with a number of cases under the National Parks Act very efficiently. I should have thought that perhaps the magistrates and quarter sessions would be better to deal with these problems than the Land Tribunal, as is proposed. But, subject to a number of points of that kind, I find myself an enthusiastic supporter of this Report and I hope that the Government will find it possible to implement it, and to implement it without delay. May I say to the noble Earl who is to reply that I had arranged my work in order to be in the University a little later on; and if before the reply I leave your Lordships' House, I hope that both he and your Lordships will forgive me.
4.24 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, it is a matter of great satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government that my noble friend Lord Gage should have chosen the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land as the subject of to-day's debate, because I am now able to reaffirm in your Lordships' House the welcome which the Government gave to this Report earlier this year in another place. It also enables me to add a personal tribute to Sir Ivor Jennings and his colleagues for the masterly way in which they discharged their formidable task. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I believe, called it a monumental Report; and

37
large-scale adjectives are certainly merited by this Report. It is a pleasure to read this Report, which, despite the many complexities of the subject, is at once thorough and clear. No one ought to dismiss the problem of common land as an esoteric study for the lawyer and antiquary, for, as this Report amply demonstrates, it concerns a far wider public. I hope that many members of the general public will recognise this and read the Report. They will find it eminently readable, and they will not be disappointed.
Your Lordships will probably remember that it is only a few weeks since my right honourable friend said in another place that the Ministry were actively considering the Report in the light of comments received from various organisations and bodies. I can assure my noble friend Lord Gage that the Government are keenly anxious that there should be no avoidable delay in announcing their conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Salisbury, spoke of the need for a trade union for Members of Royal Commissions. I can say at once that there is no intention whatever of pigeonholing this Report, simply putting away all this mass of information and not acting on it.
No one who has toiled through the massive volumes of paper and the obscure legal issues to which even the most straightforward of common cases can so often give birth could doubt the genuine desire of all concerned to simplify the present state of affairs. If there were such a doubter, surely he would be convinced after reading that most daunting third Appendix written by Sir Ivor Jennings on the complex and diverse problems of the law so cogently set out by him. Indeed, the first chapter of the Report in which the problem is slated, gives vivid illustrations of the frustrations that beset anyone who tries to do these things with a common. Noble Lords may remember in paragraph 21 the imaginary cricketers who wished to build a pavilion on the village green; and in paragraph 24 the imaginary parish council who wanted to plant some trees on a waste corner of a common. Those are typical examples of the frustration. But with so intricate a subject I am sure that it would be a mistake to be guided principally by considerations
38
of haste. We should be failing in our duty if we did not first examine most carefully the implications of the Commission's own recommendations and the alternatives and the variants which have been put to us. It is with this in mind that I have been so interested in the views that have been put forward this afternoon. The Government will give these the closest study in their further examination of this Report.
Your Lordships will not need to be reminded of the immense antiquity of common land. In the historical Appendix to the Report, Dr. Hoskins claims that generally the common lands are the oldest institution we can claim to possess; older by far than Parliament. He quotes in the first paragraph of his essay that
"Port Meadow at Oxford is the oldest surviving institution in that city, older by centuries than the University, so the common lands of England and Wales are generally the most ancient institution we now possess; older by far than Parliament, older even than the manor within whose organisation and control they subsequently fell."
If I may be forgiven a rather bad pun it is a fact in this case that commons are indeed older than the Lords. The law relating to common land and common rights is scarcely less ancient. The Statutes range from 1285, I am told—the Statute of Merton—right up to the Town and Country Planning Act of this year, 1959. Although this whole edifice of law may look so vast, so rambling, almost so ramshackle, we must be certain that if we demolish it root and branch—and that is what the recommendations of the Royal Commission refer to; a root-and-branch demolition of the present legal structure—its successor will be fully capable of standing up to the test of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did really suggest an extremely extensive root-and-branch reconstruction of the law. If this law is to be repealed wholly, he suggested that in one sweep all the commons—other than those, I think, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, had control—should go over to the local authorities. I really doubt that quite such a drastic solution will be the one that will ultimately appeal to Her Majesty's Government: and, of course, that is a very different

39
solution from that which the members of the Royal Commission propose. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said that the late Lord Jowitt had wanted to send the Anglo-Saxon laws packing, We must be careful that, if we do send the Anglo-Saxon laws packing, we put something worthy in their place, and that we do not finish up by making matters worse. That is a matter which we must guard against.
Nobody can deny that the present law perpetuates a mode of land tenure and agricultural management which is, in general, out-dated. As the Commission have shown, in all but a very few places the manorial system has gone, and the memory of the rights and of their holders has vanished. In earlier days this was not so. The laws were then mainly concerned with problems arising from common land as part of a living system of agricultural management. Then came the laws dealing with inclosure, as systems of farming changed. History up to the middle I suppose, of the nineteenth century records an increasing pressure of rising population on a fixed supply of land for food production. Thereafter, common land came to be thought of increasingly not so much as an actual or potential economic asset, but as an open space—a means of providing"natural" enjoyment and recreation to the overwhelming majority of people, who were by now living in the industrial towns.
If I may for one moment revert to the delightful speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, he did not have to remind us about this, because it is set out very clearly in the Report, in paragraph 109, how difficult it is to define what is"natural." I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount in his panegyric on the rabbit—"that cheap and efficient mowing machine," as I think he described it. Neither do I propose to follow him all the way into his exposition on the difference between butterflies, I think it was, and poisoned brussels sprouts. But, in raising the question of the Maidenhead Thicket, he did raise something which is very relevant and very true. We are perhaps inclined to look upon these close-cropped downs—in Kipling's words, I think,
"the close-bit thyme that smells like dawn in paradise"—
40
as a natural product, but it is not. The natural product will revert ultimately to high forest through scrub; and the Maidenhead Thicket is indeed a very good example of it, as the noble Viscount mentioned.
The pressure to inclose was therefore reversed from about the middle of the last century, and Parliament made it progressively harder for common land to be inclosed. It is perfectly true that the concept arose that inclosure and works on common land should normally be approved only if it was established that they contributed to the benefit of the neighbourhood. In this century, that picture has been revived twice—in the 1914 war and in the 1939 war, when temporary inclosure for food production has again been the order of the day. But who can be sure what should be the emphasis to-day, let alone what should be the emphasise to-morrow? And never forget, as has been said by several noble Lords in this debate, that the commoners' economic interest and the public's interest in recreation and access have often come into conflict—and doubtless will again. Paragraphs 143 and 144 in particular are vivid. I recall on the one hand the words,
"Animals paddle about amongst cans and broken bottles…"
On the other hand, cattle, sheep, and horses pastured on unfenced commons, whether they are on remote Dartmoor or on the much nearer Epping Forest, can cause great trouble and danger to the legitimate users of the highway and to householders living on the verge of such commons.
Thus, there has now come to be a multiplicity of interests in common land. At one extreme there is the metropolitan common, to all intents and purposes a public park or an open space: at the other extreme there are the upland grazing commons of the North, South-west and Wales, stretching over thousands of acres. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred us to those figures. There are tables on pages 25 and 26 of the Report, and the main paragraph, which perhaps qualifies it, is paragraph 49. That states baldly:
"Our investigations have shown that no one knows for certain exactly how much common land there is in England and Wales."
It was only by the Commissioners' setting on foot a most careful and painstaking

41
survey—and great assistance was given to them in this survey by local authorities—that ultimately they came to the figure of about 1½ million acres of common land in this country—as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said, an area as big as the whole of Devonshire. Perhaps the only thing we have to be thankful for is that, so far as we know, there are in Scotland no common lands as we know them in England for us to deal with by legislation.
But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, says, this is by no stretch of the imagination a homogeneous problem. The extent, use, forms of husbandry and management of common land, and the interests in it, vary from one county to the next, and also often from one common to the next. In addition, there are a great many public and private interests involved: nature conservancy, national defence, forestry, water conservation and local government at all levels are only the most outstanding of them. To add to our difficulties, we must remember that on urban commons (and this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was making) the public have a statutory right of access, but on rural commons they have no such general statutory right.
The Commission, while recognising these differences, proposed comprehensive legislation which would apply mutatis mutandis to any common land, whatever its character, anywhere in England and Wales. I do not suggest that this was mistaken, but the pros and cons of this course, as opposed to the possibility of differentiating in legislation between the various classes, must be carefully weighed. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was wondering, for instance, whether we should split the whole matter into two, as I understood it, and deal with the smaller commons—the village greens—with one block of legislation, or in one set of proposals, and with the large upland commons—the grazing commons of the mountain districts—at another time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say that there should be two Bills, but I thought they were different problems.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes; and indeed they are different problems. If one follows that argument logically, it might be that they should be tackled in
42
two different measures of legislation. The rights and uses of common land, both private and public, have grown gradually over many long years, and it will clearly be a most serious step to adopt any measure which may result in depriving an owner of rights that have descended to him through many generations.
May I now turn to the Commission's detailed recommendations for a moment? We must remember that they can be divided into three main groups. The first group is of those recommendations which provide for the ascertainment and the recording and determination of interests in common land—the registration procedure. Secondly, there are those which are directed at securing and perpetuating the status of the land and public enjoyment of it through the conferment of a right of access. It would be the conferment of a right of access in relation to rural commons, where there is no such right at the moment. Finally, there are those which would enable the interests thus established, and in certain circumstances local authorities also—many noble Lords do not welcome that procedure; the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for instance, did not welcome that procedure—to undertake schemes of management. When we are considering these three blocks of recommendations, we must always keep at the back of our minds, first, the complexity and magnitude of the law itself and the need for ensuring that in sweeping and garnishing we are not simply allowing seven other laws, perhaps more incomprehensible, to enter in; secondly, the scope of any reforming measure—the matter is one of timing or phasing: should we deal with it all at once or should we propose, for instance, to have registration legislation first?—and thirdly, the regard to which public and private interests are entitled.
In its first group of recommendations, the Commission propose the registration of common land and of rights of common and of ownership. Under these proposals, the local planning authorities (county and county borough councils) would be commons registration authorities. Eight years would be allowed for claims, after which any unregistered claims would be held to have

43
lapsed, and a further four years would be allowed for objections, after which all undisputed claims would be held to be good. The Commission also recommended that disputes should be heard by a commons commissioner, with a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
It is fair to say that these proposals have commanded a wide measure of support among the bodies who have been consulted. There have been some criticisms, but it seems to be generally accepted that a definitive record of land, rights and ownership is the foundation for further positive action. I think that all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have agreed with that. The opinion has been expressed to us—and I gather that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, would perhaps be in favour of this—that it might be possible to legislate first for registration and associated matters. We are studying this closely, and I am grateful for the views that have been expressed on this matter by noble Lords to-day. Although I am not in a position to express the Government's considered opinion on the merits of this approach, I should like to say that it is quite compatible with the three major considerations I have already mentioned. A separate registration measure would pose a number of difficulties, but it is fair to say that these would still be there if we had a comprehensive measure.
I think I must mention some of the difficulties that have occurred to us about the question of registration. I do so in no spirit of criticism of the Report, but simply because we must scrutinise the recommendations thoroughly. There have been suggestions that the eight and four year periods recommended by the Commission are too long. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, used the phrase,"twelve long years" and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, went so far as to draw a parallel with Part VI claims under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I very much doubt if that is a valid comparison, but I admit that it does seem a long time, if we are thinking of twelve years, when claims can be registered under other legislation in two. But we must remember that under the Land Registry procedure, a claim to possessory title to freehold land becomes absolute only after fifteen years.
44
This leads one to questions which clearly need the most careful consideration. What should be the minimum period for objections to claims to ownership of land? Could there be different periods for claims that land was common, claims to rights and claims to ownership and for related objections? Another most important point on registration procedure is: could we devise arrangements whereby at least some disputes could be determined before the last day for objections—that is to say, could we relate the period for objection to the date of the claim?
Again there is the question: what exactly should be the function of the commons registration authorities? The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, elaborated that at some length. He wanted local authorities to have a good deal more power as commons registration authorities than is recommended by the Commission. I go into these details only to illustrate to your Lordships both the way in which we have to follow up the Commission's recommendations and the care that we must take if we modify any of them. We may find ourselves in greater difficulty than if we take the recommendations as a whole.
I turn for a moment to the form and substance of claims. As has been brought out in the debate, the Commission recognised that a safeguard was needed against frivolous and vexatious claims—I would add also malacious claims—that land was common. They also suggested that it should be a criminal offence to register a claim of this kind without just cause. For the rest, they were content to leave it to self-interest to act as a corrective to false or exaggerated claims. We shall have to consider this matter carefully. As I am sure the Commission realised, we have to strike a balance between protecting private interests and not making the arrangements look so fearsome that people will be discouraged from making claims at all. As regards the registration of claims to ownership of land, I think that there is weight in the argument that a degree of formality is necessary, since uncontested claims would eventually be held to be good. As regards claims to common rights, perhaps less formality would be necessary, on the Commission's hypothesis that the owners of the soil and other claimants to rights will be watching the position.

45
The Royal Commission dwelt at some length on the meaning of common land. On page 24, paragraph 78, they listed no fewer than eight categories of land to which they paid attention, without pretending that this was exhaustive. Their final recommendation on the definition of common land, including village greens (page 127, paragraphs 402 and 403), is some 24 lines long. Moreover, we have had other alternative definitions put to us and we are hampered because existing Statutes use different definitions, some of which are not free from doubt. I think that this is a good example of how, without the greatest care, it would be possible to make confusion worse confounded.
I do not want to detain your Lordships much longer, but before I leave the registration proposals, I should like to quote a line or two from the Report (paragraph 311). It says:
"The recommendations in the previous chapter"—
that is, on registration—
"are necessary in themselves in order to free all interests in common land from the doubts that now handicap them. They are also in a sense preliminary steps for enabling formal schemes for the management and improvement of common land to be promoted with confidence and at little cost."
I think the Government agree with that.
Perhaps I can go briefly to the other recommendations, which were possibly the most important: first, the preservation of common land. The Royal Commission recommended that all common land be preserved as such. Some people have argued that it is unrealistic to perpetuate totally the distinction between common land and other land, and to perpetuate the procedures whereby common land can be alienated only subject to Parliamentary approval. As I understand it, their argument is not against the preservation of common land in general, but that there may be cases where, because there is sufficient land in the neighbourhood for air and exercise, it would be in the national interest that common land should be used for urban development—and this was brought out in the debate—rather than farm land, and that in such cases it would be inequitable to make such development subject to the expense and trouble of Parliamentary approval. All I can say about it is this: presumably the
46
Commissioners considered those arguments, and, because they are not contained in their recommendations, they appear to have rejected them.
The second important point to which I must direct your Lordships' attention concerns the Royal Commission's recommendation on the public having a statutory right of access to all commons. Opinion is not unanimous as to whether the statutory right of public access should be automatically extended to all common land or whether it should be extended only to certain classes or to commons individually. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, raised this quite emphatically. He, I think, felt that there was considerable doubt as to whether public access should be statutorily widened to include all common lands. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the other hand, took the contrary view, and felt that this was an essential and correct recommendation of the Commissioners
Thirdly and lastly, the Royal Commission recommended that the interests in common land, and in certain circumstances local authorities also, should be able to promote schemes for more effective management. I would remind your Lordships that earlier legislation dealing with inclosure and regulation schemes has, in many instances, become increasingly defective for dealing with the present-day situation, as our way of life has changed—and I need only mention that almost all the existing substantive legislation dealing with commons dates from a time before the motor car. So we must have more flexible methods of dealing with the management of commons.
I do not think that I should detain your Lordships longer on the details of this Report, and I simply say this in conclusion. We have had a deeply interesting debate this afternoon and I am grateful for the valuable contributions which your Lordships have made. I only wish I had been able to be more positive in replying to them, but I think I have said enough to demonstrate the difficulties with which we are confronted and the reasons why it really is not feasible for us to attempt to formulate in a few moments an alternative to a great body of law and custom which has been built up over many centuries. I am sure your

47
Lordships will realise my difficulty in accepting the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, in the precise terms in which it appears on the Order Paper. For the Government must be free to formulate their own proposals to deal with these great problems in the light of their studies of this Royal Commission's Report and the comments they have received and will receive. My right honourable friend will, for instance, I know, greatly welcome the opportunity to study your Lordships' views on the Report as they have been expressed this afternoon.
May I say, in asking most respectfully if the noble Viscount could see his way not to press this Motion, is it not perhaps a little significant that, on the one hand, he puts on the Order Paper a Motion that the Government should introduce legislation based on the recommendations of the Commission, and yet in his very able and closely-reasoned speech he gives reasons why some of the most important of the Commission's recommendations should, in his view, not be followed? He is not quite clear from the Commission who does what and when—I think that was his phrase. I should not go so far as to say that the Government are not clear as to who does what, and when, as suggested by the Report, but I think this is a good example of why we should make haste slowly and not do anything without the most careful consideration of this tricky matter. But, my Lords, I can and do give your Lordships the assurance that, though the Government are not yet ready to submit concrete proposals and the necessary legislation to Parliament, they are pressing ahead urgently with the detailed study of the Report and its recommendations and with the widespread consultations which are so necessary in a matter so complex and far-reaching as this.
4.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I must thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has, I think, been an interesting debate, if a somewhat disappointing one. I had hoped to confront my noble friend with a body of opinion all saying more or less the same thing; but that has not been so. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did not like the Report at all. My noble friend Lord Esher said that he supported the Report, but for reasons which, although they conjured up a most attractive and Arcadian picture of what life on the commons might be, contained features which I do not think would commend themselves to either of the bodies with which I am associated, with particular reference to rabbits.
LORD SILKIN: If the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene, I do not want it to go on record that I do not like the Report, because I think it is excellent. It is the recommendations that I am not in agreement with.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I must accept that somewhat delicate distinction. My noble friend Lord Salisbury also supported the Report, but he had a good number of reservations. Therefore, I do not think I can press this Motion. But perhaps my noble friend Lord Waldegrave will allow me to say this. I know that he has to make these non-committal speeches on occasion, but I also know that he is a man of great practical experience and knowledge on a number of agricultural matters. If I said that I hoped his Department would not make too much heavy weather of the difficulties, and, in the absence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, were not too much frightened by lawyers, I do not know that he would absolutely in his heart of hearts disagree. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SERVICE PROBLEMS IN ARABIAN PENINSULA
4.59 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE rose to draw attention to operational, recreational and accommodation problems affecting British forces in the Arabian Peninsula, and in particular the Royal Air Force at Aden; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is exactly three months since Members of both Houses congregated in front of your Lordships' House, as a delegation, under the, able leadership of The Member for Wycombe, Mr. John Hall, to visit the R.A.F. stations at Lyneham and Aden. Before passing on to Aden, which is the subject of this Motion, I should like to mention the courtesy and kindness with which we were received at Lyneham, and also to say—and I am sure I speak for all Members of the delegation—how pleased I was to meet the A.O.C.-in-C. Transport Command. Sir Denis Barnett, who flew down specially in the evening to welcome the delegation.
Our visit to Lyneham was also an instructive one, for we had explained to us Transport Command's capabilities and rôle in the future. We also had explained to us some of their operational problems. I should like to mention that towards the end of the last war I was stationed for a short while at Lyneham, and I was struck by the improvements that have taken place since then. On the question of accommodation, for instance, the airmen's mess is now an attractive building, where varied and appetising food is served.
The next day, on a beautiful English September morning, we took off for El Adem and Aden, and I feel confident that not all of us were aware of the very different conditions that we were to find out there, as well as the very great change in climatic conditions. At this point, I should like to mention how comfortable our trip in the Comet was, and also to stress the fine air-conditioning equipment, when one considers that at a certain point during the trip the ambient air temperature was minus 62 degrees Centigrade. On arrival at R.A.F. Station Khormaksar, which is about five miles out of Aden, my first impression (and I think this is also the impression my noble friend Lord Haddington will have
50
received) was one of stifling heat, abundant humidity, and a complete stillness of the air. I must confess that on arrival I had no idea that 24 hours later I should be suffering from what is known out there as"prickly heat," and 48 hours later from a minor form of dehydration. We were staying at the Crescent Hotel, where the rooms have individual air-conditioning units and large fans. When one left one's room early in the morning or late at night to go to the bathroom, which communicated outside through a system of lattice work, the hot air hit one as a wall.
While we were there—that is, from the Tuesday evening to the Friday morning—we were briefed on the Command's structure, shown a number of buildings, depôts, headquarters, centres. R.A.F. units, and so forth. We also had explained to us a number of the problems with which the R.A.F. had to contend. For instance, as rightly stressed by the member for Wycombe in another place, R.A.F. Station, Khormaksar, handles every year more air traffic than R.A.F., Lyneham, which is Transport Command's main transit station in this country. From the operational aspect, I think the importance of Khormaksar is stressed or high-lighted by two statements, one in the 1957 White Paper, and the other in the 1959 White Paper. I should like to quote them briefly. The first said:
"In the Arabian Peninsula Britain must at all times be ready to defend Aden Colony and Protectorates and the territories on the Persian Gulf for whose defence she is responsible."
The second White Paper said:
"In theatres overseas, there are clear operational advantages in placing the forces of all three Services under a unified command. This system was introduced recently in the Aden Command, where it is working smoothly and has proved its worth".
I think that is the impression which all members of the delegation had when speaking to senior R.A.F. and Army officers out there. That is why I can only regret an article which came out in the Daily Express on September 4, an extract from which reads as follows:
"If ever troops and air power must be used in earnest in the Arabian Peninsula, then the bloated Aden staff must stop inter-Service bickering."
The general tone of this article was neither very encouraging nor useful, and

51
it was rather badly received by members of the Services out there. I must say that it was a poor tribute to the fine morale and loyalty of our officers and men out there.
There are one or two matters which have an operational bearing to which I should now like to refer briefly, because I want to come on to the question of recreational facilities and accommodation problems. The most important scourge in Aden is the problem of corrosion, for at Khormaksar the combination of Khormaksar soil, humidity and salt air rapidly deteriorates any equipment. Apart from that, we were told that the"Beverley" aircraft has a spares list of 27,000 parts, and that there was a great shortage of spares. Perhaps when the noble Earl comes to reply he can amplify a statement which was made in another place by the Secretary of State for Air on November 23 on this question of"Beverley" spares, and state whether the situation out there is now satisfactory. We also saw some"Sycamore" helicopters, which are used for rescue purposes. But they were grounded, and had been so for several months. Would the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, please say what action has been taken by the Air Ministry on that subject, and also what action the manufacturers have taken?
Here I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a remark which was made to us out there, because I think it has a bearing on this matter from the point of view of rescue operations. We were told that the medical authorities considered that eight hours was the maximum time a pilot could survive if he had to bale out over that very rugged area. He would be suffering from acute exposure and shortage of water. We were told that an aircraft was always standing by in case of that emergency, and that it would immediately take off, with a view to dropping a rifle and water to the pilot who had the misfortune to bale out.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph on November 21 last, which stated:
"Within the Aden Protectorate, forces reinforced by British armoured cars are pacifying the Upper Aula i sheikhdom"—
52
that is on the East/West Aden Protectorate border—
"where supporters of a rival claimant are endeavouring to overthrow the ruler Emir Abdullah."
I mention this fact to show that there is fairly constant activity out there, and that patrols are a common occurrence. In fact, as mentioned in the Air Memorandum this year, 12,000 operational sorties were flown in six months.
We also met members of the Royal Air Force who considered that the twin-engine"Pioneer" aircraft was underpowered, and that the single-engine version was more suitable, especially considering the altitude of some of the alternative airfields and also the question of thin air at that altitude. Then we were told that there was a definite need for technical buildings. I would stress one very definite need, and that is for an air-conditioned building for the servicing of the delicate, costly instruments that one finds in modern aircraft. It is highly important that such a building should be provided for the servicing of these very delicate instruments.
On the question of recreational facilities I will say only a few words, as I believe that that matter will be touched on by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder. However, I should like to ask the noble Earl who will be replying for Her Majesty's Government whether the studies that have taken place into the possibilities of introducing television into Aden and the present consideration of results include plans for television broadcasts to Her Majesty's Forces out there. I have in mind the British Council White Paper of March, 1959 (Command 685), and also the statement that was made in another place on November 16 last. At the moment there are two radio broadcasts on medium waves from Aden, one in Arabic and one for Her Majesty's Forces. That station is operated on a purely voluntary basis by the Royal Air Force. As stressed by the honorable Member for Wycombe in another place on October 27, there is very little feminine companionship for our forces out there; there is just a handful of W.A.A.Fs; and that is why I think Her Majesty's Government should do everything in their power to provide varied recreational and sporting facilities.
I would also strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to approve the setting up of any facilities that will in any way widen the range and decrease the present shortage—and I must say that the Malcolm Clubs and television services come first to my mind. Here I should like to mention that the British Sailors' Society, conscious of this need, propose to set up shortly a residential club at Aden where members of Her Majesty's Forces will be welcome, provided that they are accompanied by a seaman. I must say that the impression I got out there was that the N.A.A.F.I. canteen facilities were quite inadequate. Even when the long-term plans which they have come about, there will still be no variety whatsoever. I would say, however, that it is only at the airmen's canteen at Steamer Point that I saw any form of activity being carried out on existing buildings. It was only a simple process of a coat of paint being applied, but it made a difference. As I say, that was the only activity I saw during our stay there with regard to the improvement of existing buildings.
My Lords, that brings me to the question of accommodation. So far as one could gather during our stay, most of the barrack blocks at Khormaksar date back to pre-1900, although we were shown one modern building—by that I mean recently built—for senior N.C.Os. and also some air-conditioned accommodation for airmen. I am sorry to say that, on the whole, accommodation was deplorable. That is equally true whether it was at Khormaksar or at Steamer Point, the headquarters. At Steamer Point we did see the framework (or should I say the brickwork?) of some barrack blocks that were in the process of erection, but there was not much evidence of any great activity; in fact I would say that building activity was at a very low ebb. At Khormaksar there was very definite overcrowding, yet there is still a great shortage of technical personnel; in other words, while postings are taking place constantly, we were informed, there is still a shortage of technical personnel.
Here I should like to mention to your Lordships that a number of airmen permanently sleep out on verandahs—and I should not like your Lordships to conjure up in your minds a delightful verandah overlooking some attractive
54
bay. When there is a dust storm the bedding and belongings of these airmen have to be brought inside, and certainly add very considerably to the congestion of the barrack rooms themselves. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with figures; they were given in another place on October 27 and may be found in columns 194 and 195 of Hansard for that day.
I think it is abundantly clear, however, that, even with the present plans of accommodation, bearing in mind the constant flow of airmen, in view of the numerous postings, there will be a shortfall in accommodation for the future. We were told in fact that this programme should be effective in about eighteen months' to two years' time. I wonder whether this in fact will be so, when one considers such delays as the following—and I should like just to quote one example. Drawings for buildings to be erected at Khormaksar were produced by the Air Ministry in July, 1958. In August, 1959, the contractors in Aden required non-standard windows as specified by Air Ministry. Agents in this country immediately contacted Air Ministry and drawings of the windows were received in September. Tenders were called for and received in Aden in October. The order was placed in November, and in December—that is, this month—the manufacturers still cannot start work on these windows because they are still awaiting the exact dimensions from Air Ministry. It is now over sixteen months since the drawings of these buildings were first produced.
I should now like to say a few words on the question of official hirings, of which about 280 are occupied by the Royal Air Force. We saw one which was situated in what is known as the Crater. This set of hirings was absolutely adjacent to Arab dwellings, consisting of ramshackle hutments and much sacking. Here, I would stress that my remarks are in no way intended as a criticism of the W.A.A.F. officer who was responsible for the welfare of the families under her care. She was doing her best in what I would term extremely unfavourable conditions.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him? Was this officer responsible for the R.A.F. personnel, or for all the personnel—that

55
is, the Army and the civilians who, I believe, are now the responsibility of the R.A.F. in Aden?
LORD MERRIVALE: Yes. The R.A.F. are responsible for providing this accommodation. This is not private accommodation; these are hirings which are approved by the R.A.F. I should like your Lordships to imagine the environment, and to visualise Service families living under conditions akin to those under which their flea-ridden neighbours were living. I am sorry to stress this, but here in England one does not have any idea of the conditions out there. The question of private accommodation I will not go into because we did not see any. I believe that is an aspect which will be touched on by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder. Before leaving the problem of accommodation, I should like to mention the question of air-conditioning. We were informed that no further air-conditioning units can be provided at Khormaksar base as the Aden electricity undertaking could not stand the extra load. It is purely a question of extra capital being required for the additional generating capacity. I sincerely hope that the Colonial Office will not turn a deaf ear to this request for additional capital.
Finally, there are one or two points that I should like to mention with regard to the visit we made to Riyan and Mukeiras. It was at Riyan that we first came in contact with the few members of the Hadhramant Bedouin Legion. At Mukeiras we were charmingly entertained (I say"charmingly" because the charm was provided by the wives of the officers there) to tea by officers of the Aden Protectorate Levies. We did not visit any Army units as such. We did, however, meet one or two political officers, who, I must say, have a very responsible and exacting task; and I, for one, would certainly praise them unreservedly. I was interested, too, to learn that they have no fixed tour of duty, and also that they do not have the benefit of Service rations. In fact, Her Majesty's representative at Mukalla has to obtain his fresh food from local sources. At Riyan the tour of duty is one year, compared with two years at Aden. It is a small unit on an isolated station, and as such has had to improvise its recrea-
56
tional facilities. They had there a small open-air cinema, a library and a club, and there were such facilities as shooting, boating and bathing; but it all seemed due to local R.A.F. initiative or inventiveness. One does not expect to see at a headquarters like Khormaksar or Steamer Point, the same need for improvisation.
I would also urge Her Majesty's Government to give serious consideration at least to enabling single men to return to the United Kingdom on leave after one year's service out there, though I do not suggest (for I appreciate the difficulties) that Aden should be a one-year station. I suggest that the question of reduced fares should also be given consideration, for it is certainly not the same thing for single airmen, and married airmen and their families, to go on leave at their own expense to Kenya. If Her Majesty's Government cannot view this question from a human angle, it may be that it could be considered from the aspect of operational efficiency. The words of a senior staff officer from Transport Command, which still ring in my ears, are that, due to climatic conditions out there, the output per man fell by 50 per cent. after one year's service at Aden. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have not the up-to-date knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, as to Aden. Indeed, it is twenty-seven years since, on my way back from Central Borneo, I called in at Aden and decided that I would rather be in Borneo. I appreciate that it is possible now to live satisfactorily in any part of the world—if people can live on top of the Antarctic Plateau, they can live equally well in Aden. We have had some extremely damning evidence about conditions under which the men of our three Services, but particularly the Army and the Air Force, and their families, are living in Aden. I am not concerned, in the few remarks I have to make, to find out from the Government why this has come about. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, made plain in his speech the sort of conditions which would inevitably produce difficulties—operational conditions, the difficulty in an area where the population has grown of providing,

57
overnight, satisfactory conditions. What we hope to learn from the Government to-day is what they are going to do about it.
I should like to concentrate my remarks not on the operational side, because I have not been out there recently and I have no exact knowledge of the particular problems, but on the living conditions. I take, first of all, very briefly, the question of recreational facilities and the really desperate need to get a move on with the alleviation of this problem. If, in fact, the shortage of electricity in Aden is such that there are liable to be power cuts, then the case for some drastic expansion in capital investment in that field, the expansion of electricity supplies, generation and so on, seems to me to be the No. 1 priority, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this problem in the whole. I should like to know how they are to tackle it and whether they are looking at it as a whole and establishing what it is that needs to be done first.
Then we hear about the recreational facilities. We find that they are very little and that what facilities exist are overcrowded: that there are no air-conditioned recreational halls at all. Indeed, I would ask the Government whether N.A.A.F.I. include in their long-term plans for Aden or anywhere else the provision of air-conditioned buildings, for this seems to me to be an elementary requirement in these days. I hope we shall be told that some pretty drastic steps are being taken to provide, through Malcolm Clubs or N.A.A.F.I., the kind of facilities that it is reasonable for serving men to have in a country of that kind; and the operational arguments in favour, advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, are very great.
I feel, however, that there is something very much more serious than that. On the whole, most men are able to adjust to conditions and to live—and on the whole to live tolerably happy—providing that their one vulnerable spot is not affected. Their vulnerable spot is their families. The stories that we have heard, not only from the recent Parliamentary delegation but from other visitors, about conditions for families in Aden are such that I can only say again that I believe it to be a national scandal that they can be allowed to continue. We have heard
58
that, due to shortage of accommodation, families are having to live sometimes not only in inadequate hirings but in private accommodation. We have heard of one family, a man with his wife and three children, living in a room without any ventilation at all and paying £22 per week for it. That is not good enough; and there are other examples. This particular hotel, whose name I will mention—the Metropole Hotel—is officially off the list of private accommodation, but there is nowhere else for these families to go, and therefore as recently as the end of November there were 37 families living under bad conditions, of which I have mentioned some particularly bad examples.
I do not know who is to blame, and I do not really care very much at the moment, but I want to know what Her Majesty's Government are going to do about it. I quite agree that they cannot do something overnight, but another hot season is coming along and something must be done before then; and something should be done in an imaginative way. In the shipping slump which exists at the moment why cannot the Government hire a liner and put it out there and let at least some of the families live in better conditions? Secondly, would the Government take steps to ensure that families of men serving out there are prevented from going out while these conditions exist? The Government may say that that is a very illiberal thing for me to suggest and that in a sense it is up to the men themselves to decide; but there is a very subtle kind of blackmail—the 61-day rule which requires families to vacate quarters in this country; and under those conditions, what is the man to do? How can he decide? I believe it is obvious that he will say,"If we are to live in difficulty and squalor I would rather have my family here in the hope that something pretty drastic will be done to sort this out."
I would only say, in conclusion, that we have the evidence. I do not think the Government will dispute it. I am not seeking to-day to blame them for it although I think it would be possible to do so; but we shall do so if they do not tell us what they are going to do about it. I would hope that some senior officer, civil servant, or committee of inquiry might go out there to look into

59
conditions. Obviously, the people in command out there are doing their best, but after a time, if one is living in impossible conditions about which one can do nothing, one inevitably becomes defeatist; and if these conditions go on there will be defeatism out there, if it is not there already. Why should not the Inspector-General (if the R.A.F. still have one) go out to Aden and come back here with clear recommendations? I hope we shall hear definitely to-day that Her Majesty's Government mean business.
5.35 p.m.
LORD TEDDER: My Lords, just over a week ago two ladies who have had many years' experience of working overseas with troops during the war and afterwards returned from a visit to Bahrein and Aden. They had gone out following reports that in neither place were there anything like adequate amenities for the troops, and their object was to explore the possibilities of helping to meet the situation with the Malcolm Clubs (of which your Lordships have heard) if those reports proved to be true. I will return later to the question of Malcolm Clubs because, in fact, in their report, which I have, the question of accommodation stood out above all others.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has referred to the impressions which he and his delegation got when they went out there about two months ago. I can assure him of one thing: there has since been some further improvement. One other barrack room has been painted—and that was specially pointed out as having been done since the delegation were there; so that they had some effect. To be serious, the main problem remains, and this later investigation shows that the conditions were far, far worse even than the delegation appreciated, because the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said that they did not see what was called"private accommodation" which, if it is not the lowest of the low—well, at any rate, the delegation did not see that.
If I may, I will quote from the report on the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred, that of a corporal, his wife and two children:
"This family was living in one room without a window or any form of ventilation, the room being so small that it only took three single beds with just a small chair and a tiny table to hold the oil stove for cooking".
60
They had to do their own cooking because the food was uneatable.
"The state of the beds and chair was below slum standard."
For this the airman was charged £22 per week, in addition to which 21s. per week had to be spent on special milk as the milk provided was not safe to drink. The allowances for Aden are good, but they are not good enough for that scale.
I will quote a second example, that of a corporal and his wife and children of 12 years, 9 years and 6 weeks, all living in one room for which the charge was £22 10s. per week, with 31s. for milk. The report says:
"The whole hotel was dirty, dark and utterly degrading"
and the smell in the whole place was bad largely due to the state of the lavatories. I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said: that that hotel was taken off the list at the end of the September and one of the families removed from it. But on November 24 there were still 37 families living in that hotel, and many other families are accommodated in similar sordid conditions. I should like to make clear that in speaking of troops I am speaking of both the Army and the Royal Air Force, because we are all involved in this.
I realise only too well the way in which changing strategic and political considerations have led to this sudden influx of troops to a figure far beyond the maximum that any existing accommodation in Aden could stand, and I do understand that large funds have been set aside and plans prepared for the provision of additional accommodation. But, my Lords, we can be quite sure, even apart from the grisly example quoted by Lord Merrivale, that, with the best will in the world, two years is probably grossly optimistic. It may well be three; and even then that may not be adequate, because the numbers will have gone up.
This is an intensely difficult problem because it has been for many years foremost in the policy of all three Services to try to minimise the handicaps of separation, and so on, from which the wives and families of Servicemen suffer. Therefore, endeavour has been made, and is being made, to arrange for families to join their husbands overseas as

61
soon as and wherever possible. In the execution of this policy the utterly laudable democratic procedure is adopted of allowing a man himself to make the decision as to whether his wife and family should be brought out to join him. It is his choice.
The first stage of the families' odyssey lands them in what is called private accommodation. To get this accommodation, the man on arrival out there has to go to the local agent—there is only one—and, having paid £15 key money, he has to take the best he can get. I have quoted two examples which I think are fairly typical of what he gets. That is what a newly arrived family from home meet, probably never having been outside this country before. Of course, it is true that in nine months or twelve months or so a lucky family may move up a stage into"hirings". That may be better; and if they are extremely lucky they may within two or three months from the end of the two years' tour move into official quarters.
I said just now that the man himself has freedom of choice. That conveys with it responsibility. I ask your Lordships to imagine the position of a man knowing that his family at home will have to vacate Service quarters in the United Kingdom within 61 days of his posting to Aden—that is the 61-days rule—worried as to their ability to find other accommodation in the United Kingdom; anxious, therefore, on that account, if for no other, to get them out to join him as soon as possible: and as a result feeling himself compelled to accept initially conditions of living which are really comparable only with those of displaced persons in Germany after the end of the war. Is that a fair responsibility to put on the shoulders of any soldier or airman? I submit that it is not.
There is another point. In these days I suppose it is unfashionable to talk about British prestige, but even in these days I submit that it is utterly wrong to house British Servicemen and their wives and families in what even in the East would be classed as only slums. In view of my own Service experience I can probably appreciate as well as anybody the appallingly difficult problem which has faced the Departments at home and the commanders out there; and the last thing I would suggest is a witch-hunt for
62
a scapegoat, I understand that long-range plans, and so on, are in hand. I suppose it would be unfair for me, without knowing all the facts to point out that it is at least two years since this problem first presented itself, and one cannot escape the fact, as I said just now, that it is going to be two to three years before it can ever be remedied by proper accommodation.
I suggest that the present conditions cannot be tolerated for that time, and that some immediate action is essential in the interests of the men and their families and for the very good name of the Services themselves. I suggest for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government that no further married families be called out unless and until decent quarters or"hirings" are available; and that the practice of requiring a man to take up so-called private accommodation be stopped. That, I realise, will entail securing additional"hirings" in the United Kingdom for the time being.
As regards the families at present living in the shocking conditions which we know of now, there seem to be two alternatives: either to return them to the United Kingdom or to improvise hygienic accommodation locally. As regards returning families to the United Kingdom, my own feeling was that that drastic step could be taken fairly only in cases where the individuals concerned expressed the wish that that should be done, and of course only if there were accommodation for them at home. So that might mean that not many would go out of Aden. As regards improvisation, I would take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that steps be taken to explore the possibility of chartering suitable shipping, with at least a proportion of air conditioning, to lie in the harbour. Even in the hot weather, such accommodation could not be more oppressive than, or as oppressive as, that sun-baked oven Aden Crater. It would be hygienic and it would get British families out of the local Arab slums. I can say that preliminary inquiries have suggested to me that there should not be any great difficulty in securing the chartering of suitable shipping.
The information on which I have based my remarks is necessarily secondhand. I intend to remedy that at the

63
earliest possible moment. I could not go before, but I now have the tickets on my desk and I shall leave for Aden in nine days' time. On the other hand, I have no reason whatever to doubt the accuracy of the reports that I have received, and it is probable, I think, that my visit will serve only to corroborate previous reports. That does not mean that I am starting off with a closed mind. If I find that things are better than I think they are now, I shall say so. In any case, on my return I will gladly pass on to noble Lords who may be interested, either individually or collectively, my own first-hand impressions of the situation. I hope that no one will suggest that action be deferred until further and further reports are available. I suggest that there is surely enough information for Her Majesty's Government to realise that immediate action is what is essential, and if action has to be taken it has to be taken soon, because there is not so much time before the next hot season again turns Aden into a super-heated Turkish bath.
As I said, my Lords, the two ladies whose report I have quoted went out with the object of exploring the possibilities of helping to relieve the shortage of amenities for the troops by establishing Malcolm Clubs there. Their report shows that the need for amenities such as those provided by those clubs was amply proven, and that at both stations the facilities afforded by the N.A.A.F.I. were utterly inadequate and sordid, to say the least. We know about the extensive plans for fresh accommodation, but it is going to be years before they can be implemented. I will not burden your Lordships with details regarding the specific proposals which have now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Air. I think all I need say is that at Aden arrangements have been made, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Air and of the Air Officer Commanding, to erect air-conditioned hutments which should be able to provide full club facilities within three months from the word"Go"—and that is a conservative estimate.
At Bahrein there is available accommodation, recommended by both the Army and the Royal Air Force Commanders, which could be taken over and operated as a married families' club for
64
all three Services. I understand that this proposition was offered to the N.A.A.F.I. but was rejected on the grounds that the restrictions by the Ruler on the sale of beer would, in their opinion, make it impossible to make an adequate profit. That is a risk which the Malcolm Clubs would be quite prepared to accept. Investigation and consultation on the spot led to the conclusion that the Malcolm Clubs could undertake that service, and are willing to undertake it, within a matter of weeks. It is perhaps interesting to note that the cost of that particular undertaking can, and will, subject to the approval of the trustees of the Malcolm Clubs Trust Fund, be met by a subscription to that fund by airmen and ex-airmen.
I trust that consideration and approval for these proposals will not be unduly drawn out. But, my Lords, I was rather shocked to note that, in a signal to the Air Ministry at Aden on this subject, it was stated:
"Co-ordination with existing comprehensive plans for N.A.A.F.I. development will need delicate handling here."
What does"delicate handling" mean? I can but interpret it as meaning that the establishment of a Malcolm Club requires the approval of the N.A.A.F.I. My Lords, time is the essence of this matter. We cannot, I suggest, have on our conscience men, women, and children living under those conditions in Arab slums in the tropics; and I suggest that the best Christmas present—not New Year present, but Christmas present—that the Government could give the troops is clear evidence now of their determination and intention to put things right. For example, the acceptance of the Malcolm Clubs' offer would be a pretty clear one. That would at least help to tide over the inevitable interim period, and, I hope, would do something to restore hope and faith amongst the troops.
5.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, other noble Lords have dealt so exhaustively with the conditions at Aden that I feel there is not a great deal for me to add. At the same time, as the only other Member of your Lordships' House, along with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on this delegation, I should like to say one or two words in support

65
of his Motion. First of all, I want to add my tribute to those who planned this visit and who helped to organise it and carry out the programme—because the organisation was quite superb. The hospitality at Riyan, El Adem and at Aden was unbounded: and one of the strongest impressions I came away with was of the magnificent type of officer, non-commissioned officer, and aircraftsman which is being enlisted in the R.A.F. to-day. It impressed me more than I can say—and all doing such a splendid job of work guarding our vital interests in this outpost of the Arabian Peninsula. I thought they were magnificent.
That is one side, the rosy side, of the picture; but there is a rather darker side, which has been stressed by all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon—in particular, by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, with all his experience of the Service. I think we have all been delighted to hear that he is shortly going to visit Aden, and I am sure that his visit will have a very pronounced effect. I hope he will see better conditions before long—Malcolm Clubs, and all the rest of it—because the conditions at the moment are anything but easy and comfortable. I do not think that we ought to exaggerate it too much, because I believe that people who go into the Services must be prepared to go to any sort of station, anywhere, and at any time. I believe that a certain amount of hardship and discomfort in youth builds up character. It helps to strengthen moral and physical fibre. Further, of course, if you go from a bad station to a better station, how very much better the next station seems than it really is! But, of course, when it comes to a point where adverse conditions begin to affect efficiency, that is the time that something should be done; and I am quite sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said, that all the members of our delegation were quite convinced that at Steamer Point and at Khormaksar that situation had been reached.
There has been talk of lack of recreational facilities. Well, my Lords, the bed-bug is not a very congenial companion; but one of the only recreations I think we saw in Aden was counting the bed-bugs on the verandah
66
of a barracks at Steamer Point. I remember the total quite well—it was 35. We swept them all away for inspection, but by nightfall they were all back again. That is the sort of thing that must get even the most hardened airman down, my Lords. But it struck me that what is wanted, above all, is more air-conditioning: air-conditioning of barrack blocks, of N.A.A.F.I's, and of the workshops and offices. Because, in this oppressive heat, if a man cannot sleep at night, he is not going to do his work properly in the daytime. I believe that the authorities are doing a lot to relieve the situation. I believe, too (the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, will be able to put me right on this) that the difficulties are largely due to what they call the air barrier, and to the fact that the troops cannot be reinforced rapidly now from the Mediterranean. That is one reason why the population in Aden, both the Service population and the native population, has grown so quickly. Will the building keep up with the demands? That is the great question.
The pressing problem of married quarters has been stressed by noble Lords, and I do not think I need do more than corroborate what has been said on that. I feel that single men can stand a good deal, but it is quite a different matter when it comes to the married men and their families. The system out there is very good. A man must wait for six months until he decides to bring his family out—six months in which to judge whether they would be able to stand the climate and the conditions. I think also that if a man's family does not come out, or cannot come out for any of these reasons, the man should have more frequent home leave—if possible, every six months. It must be home leave to his family, and not leave to a rest camp in Kenya. It seemed to us an extraordinary short distance in a Comet. It was a stimulating experience to have breakfast in Aden, with a one-and-a-half hour stop for re-fuelling at El Adem, and to be back at London airport for tea. I do not want to detain your Lordships, and do not think I have much more to say, except to tell your Lordships that in spite of all these drawbacks, the morale of the men out there was magnificent. That was one of my main impressions, the wonderful morale of all ranks in spite

67
of these depressing conditions. I left Aden with a feeling of intense pride in the Royal Air Force, who are carrying out their duties in the best traditions of the Service. I think that they deserve better treatment, and I would urge the Government to give this problem their closest attention.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I have not visited Aden for many years, and what I want to say this afternoon is on the principles underlying what we have heard this afternoon. What has been said about the human problem of housing sounded to me deplorable. I should like to stress the importance of this and of the other side of the question—efficiency. I speak about the Army, but I think that what I say applies equally to all Servicemen out there. Our soldiers are carrying out operational duties, and during the time they are not on these duties, they must have reasonable accommodation to rest and to train for their next operation. If their conditions are so terrible, they are not ready for the next operation and there is a loss of efficiency.
Those two points have already been brought out to-day, and I think they are very obvious. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government do not already know of this situation. I am sure they do, and that steps are being taken. But what we all want to impress on the Government is that this is a matter of real urgency. It is not a question of making up splendid new plans but of getting on with them. The use of liners for the accommodation of Servicemen and their families has been mentioned. I was interested in this idea because some years ago, when the Suez canal station was being used, I suggested that this should be done. I think that it is a good idea. I do not see any great difficulties in it.
These bad conditions of service have a bearing on recruiting. We have had many debates in your Lordships' House on the difficulties of getting the right sort of men, both as officers and as other ranks, to join the Services, and your Lordships have said many times that the provision of accommodation for families, the education of the children and other family requirements are
68
most important. Having listened to noble Lords who have spoken to-day, I can only say that it is painfully obvious that in the area we are discussing these conditions are bad. Surely once more it will have the effect of discouraging recruits. Young men thinking of joining the Forces may say,"We have heard of what goes on at Aden. We don't want to go to places like that." Surely this is something that the Government must realise. We have all tried to think of ways of recruiting. Recruitment has not been too bad, but it can still be improved—certainly the recruiting of officers. Anything which is going to deter men from joining or staying in the Services must be put right. I think that it is lack of attention to such normal human questions as housing which harms efficiency and deters men from joining or staying in the Services.
6.7 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for introducing this debate this evening. I hope that he will not feel that your Lordships did not take note of the wide range of his speech simply because we focus our attention on the conditions under which Service personnel are serving in the Arabian area. I have seen a report prepared by two well-known ladies on their recent visit to Aden. Perhaps I should have been surprised, but I am not, because, as your Lordships know, I have spent some time in the Far East, and I have seen with my own eyes the conditions under which some of our Service families live in Singapore and in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, families are quartered in accommodation which, though it may not itself be in the slum category, is in an area not of the kind in which your Lordships' children would be brought up, some of which is little better than a brothel area.
The Government and Service chiefs may ask why soldiers and airmen take their families overseas. I think that is quite understandable that a Serviceman wishes to have his family with him, just as a civilian does. And I believe that that is a good thing. I can remember, in the early part of the war, that in my unit, which had been serving only two years, we had at least 25 per cent. of our soldiers with family troubles. In

69
my view, we should encourage the soldier and airman to take his family to his overseas station. We know that in Aden and in other stations there is a shortage of suitable accommodation, but I believe that if we used twentieth century methods in building we could go a long way in providing accommodation of the kind required for the families of our soldiers and airmen.
There was a debate in the other place on October 27 when, unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Air had only six minutes in which to reply. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate, and upon whom there is no time limit, will give us a frank statement of how the Government view the situation and of their immediate and long-term programme. The Secretary of State for Air stated that there was a building programme of private enterprise flats in Aden, but he did not give any idea of the numbers. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can give us that information, and also tell us who is building these flats and what rents will be charged to the Service personnel. This matter is important, because my experience of Service personnel having flats and houses is that they all pay extortionate rents, and I am suspicious of the word"private enterprise flats". I hope that we shall hear some good news from the noble Earl.
I hope the Government will send out, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton suggested, the Inspector General, who of course can investigate the situation. I hope, however, that he will take with him, if the Government agree to send him, the Chief Engineers of the Army and the Air Force, because it is not only an investigation we want but also immediate plans for short-term building to get over this difficulty. This debate has largely concentrated on the Air Force, but we know that the Army also is involved. I believe that the bulk of the Army in Aden to-day is serving under canvas. This is all right for a short time and in an emergency, but it is quite intolerable that we should regard Aden as a long-term defence base and yet not support it with the amenities for our troops. Canvas will never give the right type of accommodation. Therefore I earnestly hope that, if the Government do accept the suggestion made, and send out the Inspector General of the Royal
70
Air Force, he will take with him the Chief Engineers of the Army and the Air Force so that no time will be lost in rectifying the position.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Merrivale for moving this Motion. I think it is always more interesting and probably more constructive when noble Lords move Motions on things they have actually seen and heard for themselves rather than on things based on reports in newspapers and second-hand conversations. As your Lordships are aware, since the time of the Suez operation the Aden Colony has become the key point for the protection of British interests and the fulfilment of British obligations in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere south of the"air barrier". Whereas it was previously possible to reinforce Aden rapidly from the Mediterranean, it is now necessary to station large numbers of Royal Air Force and Army personnel in Aden itself. As a result, the Service population in Aden has been increased in the past two years—we entirely agree with what noble Lords have said about the sudden overcrowding—and a shortage of all kinds of accommodation has inevitably developed. The same considerations apply broadly to other stations in the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf.
A further difficulty in the case of Aden is the extreme shortage of suitable building land. I gather that where in an ordinary part of the world, so to speak, you could say,"Right; we will build a new block of married quarters there", and then move the people from where they were and pull down the old buildings, this is more or less impossible in Aden because of the acute shortage of ground to take the foundations.
The three Services in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Persian Gulf, as your Lordships know, have recently been brought together under a unified command, and responsibility for dealing with operational problems affecting the area has been vested in the Commander-in-Chief of that Command.
With your Lordships' permission, I will take the three main problems in the order in which they are set out in the Motion. The principal operational problem affecting units in the area is

71
movement. I understand that the distances between the Unified Headquarters in Aden and the localities in the Persian Gulf where our Forces are deployed are so vast that the only ready means of transportation is by air. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, raised the question of Beverleys. It is true that the principal aircraft at the disposal of the Command for general movement of stores and personnel is the Beverley. At the time of the visit to Aden last September some difficulties were experienced in the supply of spare parts for this aircraft, with consequent unserviceability. The initial provisioning of Beverley spares was based on the assumption that all Beverleys would be based in this country. It was later decided, for strategic reasons, that some squadrons should be deployed overseas. This change of base increased the spares need, and since there was not enough time for increased provisioning to take immediate effect there was a temporary shortage. This was aggravated by the climatic conditions in the Arabian Peninsula which have caused a high incidence of corrosion. Increased orders were placed as soon as the need for them became apparent, and difficulties are now much relieved.
The noble Lord asked me about the Sycamore helicopters. I have looked into that question, and I understand, as he stated, that during his visit there they were temporarily withdrawn owing to difficulties which were found to affect the rotor blades in tropical conditions, and Whirlwinds were attached to Aden to cover the commitment. Following successful trials in the Far East by the Royal Air Force new rotor blades have been manufactured for the Sycamore and these are being delivered to Aden. The noble Lord also asked about the twin-engine Pioneers. I understand that they have proved particularly useful for the job of landing at and taking off, with a useful load on board, from the small airstrips of the Aden Protectorate, but it is true that in the very hot conditions in which the aircraft have to operate the total load which can be carried has had to be slightly reduced. This is a precaution to ensure that the Pioneer's performance is still safe, even if one engine fails during the take off, and it is considered a small penalty to pay. We are looking into ways and means of overcoming even this.
72
Large-scale improvements to Khormaksar airfield are nearing completion. These include extension of the runway necessitated by the increased use of the airfield in recent years.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and other noble Lords dealt extensively with recreational and welfare problems. I think that that was really the main theme of the debate. There is, I admit on behalf of my right honourable friend, still a shortage of recreational facilities in Aden, although these have been recently extended. A Forces broadcasting station will be installed next year to replace the existing facilities. The existing United Services Club is being extended and improved. A swimming pool and Lido is being built, open air cinemas are I understand available, and more are being provided. Other facilities, such as boating and riding, are also available.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Earl say where the new swimming pool is being built?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not being familiar with the spot I could not tell the noble Lord the exact name off-hand, but I will let him know. The noble Lord dealt with television, but I understand that at present there are no plans for a television station. As has been stated already, the present tour of duty is for two years, except for operational units of the Army, who do only one year of their three-year overseas tour in Aden. All Servicemen may take up to fourteen days of their leave each year outside Aden in the Nyali leave camp, near Mombassa in Kenya, which has accommodation for 270. This is run by N.A.A.F.I., and I am informed that the facilities include an excellent beach, a sports ground and cinema. This is most popular, and we are considering the possibility of extending and improving that camp.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, are those facilities open for Service families? May they be taken at Service expense?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will inquire for the noble Lord and let him know. There is an additional supplementary scheme for Servicemen who may travel to Nairobi at public expense and make their own arrangements for

73
accommodation. This serves to reduce the pressure on Nyali. Married unaccompanied Servicemen may take a minimum of 28 days' leave in the United Kingdom with free travel during their tour. Alternatively, Servicemen may accumulate up to one-quarter of their annual leave and take it on return to the United Kingdom.
The shortages of accommodation and poor housing conditions for families have led to the suggestion that the tour of duty should be for one year unaccompanied by families, or that frequent home leave should be given to those whose families cannot join them. The Air Ministry has, I am glad to tell noble Lords, sent out a team of officers to look into conditions on the spot. This team, I was informed to-day, has now returned and reported, and the report is now being studied by the Minister and those responsible.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Earl say who these officers are and what are their ranks? It is very important, if these officers have gone, that they should be men of responsibility and influence.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will certainly let the noble Lord know the names of the officers, but I should imagine that the Ministry would not have sent anybody who was a mere boy with about two years' service.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl—who is very patient—at the risk of denuding the Front Bench again, but may I ask whether the contents of this report will be made available to us?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will certainly look into that question, but I do not think I can give the noble Lord the answer. They have only this moment come back. If the noble Lord puts down a Question at a later date I may be able to give him further information on that subject. The noble Lord asked me the name of the swimming pool and it is Seedaseer lines.
LORD SHACKLETON: Where is it?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: At Aden. I understand that it would be extremely difficult to grant free leave travel to the United Kingdom to all who required it,
74
one of the obvious difficulties being shortage of aircraft. Clearly there are objections to a twelve-month tour. It would reduce efficiency by increasing the turnover of staff, and involve additional postings elsewhere. There would also be problems of housing in the United Kingdom the families of those Servicemen in Aden. I noted the remarks of two or three noble Lords in regard to liners, and I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that suggestion.
The shortage of facilities in Aden and elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula is well understood by all Service Departments, but the best solution is clearly to press on with the construction of all types of permanent accommodation, including married quarters, in order to meet the most important needs of the Serviceman first, and to provide recreational facilities in step with the provision of permanent accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, raised the question of a Malcolm Club. I understand that certain suggestions have recently been made by the Malcolm Clubs to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Air. They are now being most carefully examined, and I can assure your Lordships that this examination will be pressed ahead with all speed. I think the representatives met only last Friday.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, do I understand that the noble Earl is advised that the conditions of accommodation are as bad as have been described to your Lordships to-day? The noble Earl made no reference to that type of accommodation. If so, why has it been allowed to get into this condition when you have been planning to step up your establishments for over two years?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the noble Viscount and others would not keep interrupting me so much I would come to that part of my speech.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I want to know.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am coming to that, and if I could have a chance to make my speech perhaps I should be able to tell the House something.
The most important of the accommodation problems concern the provision

75
of barracks and married quarters for Service units and personnel. There are also difficulties in making available the necessary accommodation for the Command Headquarters in Aden. The R.A.F. are primarily concentrated at Aden, and their most severe deficiency is in airmen's single quarters at Steamer Point. To meet this, air-conditioned barrack blocks are at present being built to provide some 600 quarters. These are due for completion by the autumn of next year. An airmen's mess and club is also being provided. A new school at Khormaksar is now under construction and due for completion in 1961. Nine classrooms are, however, expected to be ready for use in about mid-1960. To relieve the immediate classroom shortage, three prefabricated huts have been erected in time for the present school term.
A building programme for married-quarter flats at Steamer Point includes 66 to be started in 1960, and a proposal is now being examined to erect some 200 prefabricated married quarters at an estimated cost of £1 million. The R.A.F. already have over 400 married quarters in Aden—some of which are used by the other Services—and there should there-fore be nearly 700 by the time the present programme is completed in early 1961. We plan to erect five air-conditioned barrack blocks, each of 150 capacity, at Khormaksar. An airmen's mess and club will be built. The first two barrack blocks should be completed by September, 1960, and the rest in 1961.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and, I think, another noble Lord, raised the question of power supply. The plans for development in Aden will create an increased demand for electricity. We are taking this into account, however, and there should be sufficient capacity to meet all the needs we can foresee, including demands for air-conditioning plants. This is an inter-Service programme and the Air Ministry are coordinating schemes with the Admiralty and the War Office. That is being discussed at the moment. Air-conditioning is being incorporated in all new buildings for the R.A.F. in Aden. All the buildings w ill be air-conditioned gradually, but this is bound to take some time. Only a limited amount of money and effort can be diverted to air-conditioning old build-
76
ings, and the work is not always easy, since many of the older structures were built with high ceilings and large verandahs, in an attempt to make them airy.
Accommodation for the Army in Aden is also very short, as noble Lords said; and I agree. Troops have been moved in at relatively short notice in the last two years, and there has been virtually no accommodation for them. Interim improvements have been made and plans agreed for reasonable long-term accommodation. For example, a contract has recently been placed for 240 married quarters for the Army and for air-conditioned barracks for an infantry battalion. The first block should be ready by next autumn and the rest by the summer of 1961. Sixteen new barrack huts, giving air-conditioned sleeping accommodation for 640 men, are nearly complete. Another contract, worth about £850,000, for messes and offices will be let in the spring. Camps with air-conditioned sleeping quarters are being built for troops who would otherwise be under canvas (700 troops are at present living in tented accommodation in Aden) or in overcrowded huts. Any further building for Army personnel will depend on the size of the permanent garrison in Aden.
Servicemen may also make private arrangements to rent accommodation and obtain repayment, within certain limits. This accommodation is medically inspected by the Service authorities, and every effort is made to ensure that it is suitable. If the accommodation is not suitable, the Commanding Officer withholds his consent. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the various instances that noble Lords have raised, and if they have any further cases I shall be only too pleased to put them before him. I can say here and now that they will be investigated to see how these things went wrong. The Army, like the R.A.F., also has stations elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula. It is planned to build three air-conditioned barrack blocks for the Army, at a cost of £90,000, at Bahrein. Additional accommodation will be constructed at Sharjah when the strength of the long-term garrison there has been determined. There are few accommodation problems for naval personnel in the Arabian Peninsula. They are shore-based staff

77
only at Bahrein and Aden. There are long-term plans for adding to the existing permanent accommodation in Bahrein and for providing additional accommodation in Aden.
We must frankly admit, my Lords, that there have been serious operational and accommodation problems to be faced in the Arabian Peninsula. These were due, first, to the need to reinforce our garrisons in many parts of the area, both at the time of Suez and subsequently; and, secondly, to the need to retain there forces of a size adequate to meet our future commitments in the area. The operational problems have been faced with the determination and ingenuity which one expects from the British Serviceman, and I should like to add my praises, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington did. I am glad to say the most serious of the problems are well on the way to being solved.
As regards accommodation, we have had to face the inevitable consequences of having to pour, one might say, a quart into a pint jug. We have been pressing on, as rapidly as our resources and local capacity have permitted, with building permanent accommodation for our men and for their families, and I can assure noble Lords that our present plans, when fully implemented, will pro-vide a satisfactory standard of living for all who happen to be stationed in this Command. We hope within the next twelve months to have taken the greater part of our troops out of tents. We should not, I think, overlook the fact that this is one of the few areas of the world where at the present time our forces are still engaged in operations and where peace-time standards and conditions will, I fear, have to give way to operational requirements.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it is usual for the mover of the Motion, after the Minister has spoken, to ask leave to withdraw it, but I beg leave to ask the House for its attention for a few moments on two grounds. First of all, the noble Earl said that he did not like to be interrupted, so he brought this upon himself. Secondly, I think he spoke under that very difficulty which he enunciated at the beginning, when he said that it is very much easier when you do not s leak secondhand. I fully sympathise
78
with the noble Earl, who we all know is speaking on behalf of a Department for which he has not ministerial responsibility. Nevertheless, if I may say so, I have rarely heard a more inadequate reply given to your Lordships on a serious matter. Nothing was said about whether the policy of continuing to call forward wives and families to Aden is or is not to continue; I do not know at the end of the debate what is Her Majesty's Government policy, whether it is to continue as at present or not. All too little was said about the Government's acceptance, or non-acceptance, of responsibility for what is called private accommodation. The Minister said nothing at all about whether or not the 36 families still living in disgusting conditions in the Hotel Metropole, condemned last September, are to remain there indefinitely—we do not know.
As regards the private accommodation, I have here in my hand a little, very admirable booklet which is given to men arriving at Aden. It is called, Families' Information Booklet. I will read this extract:
"Accommodation, Private. If you have moved into private accommodation it has already been passed as fit for occupation by the medical officer and cleared for security purposes by the R.A.F. Police. The private dwellings and their surroundings in Aden are much below the standard you are used to at home, but your house or flat has been vetted with this in mind."
Like other noble Lords, I also have read the impartial report of those two ladies who have just come back from Aden. If the report is wrong in stating that there are thirty-six families still living in disgusting conditions in a hotel condemned last September, we should be told so in this House: we ought not to have a reply which has ignored most of the major questions that have been put to the Minister during the debate. We have heard that a team of officers has been sent out. We are entitled, I think, to ask whether the inquiry was made by the Inspector-General—who, after all, is the impartial senior officer on the flank of the Royal Air Force, and is not concerned with the ladder of administration in the Royal Air Force—or those who (though I do not say it is their fault in any way) are intimately concerned with the creation of the existing state of affairs.

79
I do not belittle the difficulties. Nevertheless, if they are officers who have been in the chain of administration itself, it is much harder for them to have to report on the failures of the chain, due to the circumstances which have overwhelmed them, than for an Inspector-General on the flank. I should have liked to hear the Minister say on behalf of his right honourable friend that either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State would be going out, if the Inspector-General could not go. I am appalled at the idea that we in this House, who are fortunate in that we are going home to warmth and comfort and to decent food, should pass over tonight, without severe criticism, this Motion and accept a situation which complacently allows the continuance of the state of affairs of which we have heard. Although I do not blame the Department—and let me stress that again; they have contended well, I believe, within the limits of Treasury sanction and within the limits of administration within the Department—they do not appear to have shown any sense of urgency with regard to this problem. I suggest that we should not leave the matter there, but should come back to it in a most forceful and definite manner.
6.41 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, before withdrawing my Motion I should like to make one or two brief comments—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Do not withdraw it.
LORD MERRIVALE:—because I spoke at some length when I opened this debate. I would agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye when he says that this problem really has not been tackled by Her Majesty's Government as if Aden was—I use the words
80
of the noble Earl—a key point of British interests in the Middle East. We have heard that a team of officers has returned from there, and I am hoping that their report will be available to Members of Parliament. We have also heard that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, will shortly be leaving for Aden. When he returns, and if by then the report has been studied by noble Lords, it may be appropriate again to raise this matter. It has also been suggested that the R.A.F. Inspector-General should go out there, accompanied by the Chief Engineers of the R.A.F. and the Army. That seems to be a very sound suggestion indeed. I should like to add that members of the Royal Air Force there would greatly like to see a member of Her Majesty's Treasury. As I say, I think the reply from Her Majesty's Government has been inadequate, but I am sure noble Lords interested in this subject will study with interest and in detail the remarks made by the noble Earl.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord has made such a good case that the Government might feel inclined to accept this Motion. If I might tender some advice to the noble Lord, it would be that he should ask the Government to do that.
LORD MERRIVALE: Well, my Lords, I do not know how I stand on this question. I feel that the Government do not wish to accept my Motion. I gather that impression from looking at the Government Front Bench. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
On Question, resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.