Lords Sitting of 10 November 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 Ely
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

MIXED COMMITTEE ON KRUPP ASSETS
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state the present position of the Mixed Committee set up to consider applications for an extension of time for the disposal of certain assets of Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach under the 1953 Deconcentration Agreement.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the Committee has granted an extension of time up to January 31, 1960. It has under consideration an application for a further extension beyond that date.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, while I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, may I ask him whether he will kindly bear in mind a matter which was left in doubt on July 27, the last date
462
on which this subject was raised in the House? That is, that it is desirable that both the deliberations and the Report of the Mixed Committee should be published, in order that the public may know precisely what have been the arguments used by Herr Krupp in applying for an extension of time.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said on July 27, in answer to a Question, the question of any publication is a matter for the four Governments; but certainly I will give the noble Viscount the assurance for which he asks: that we will bear very much in mind what he has repeated about the importance of possibly having the Report made public.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask whether the purpose of the Mixed Committee is restricted to discussing applications for extensions of time, and that it is not concerned with providing a means for the evasion of the principles of the Deconcentration Agreement?
THE EARL OF PERTH: The purpose of the Committee, my Lords, is to consider applications for extensions of time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, when the noble Earl said that Her Majesty's Government would give careful consideration to the noble Viscount's suggestion, did that mean that they will direct our representative to vote against an extension of time?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I do not think that that is quite what we were discussing. What we were discussing was the publication of the Report, as to which I said we would give careful consideration. It was not anything to do with what might be our instructions in regard to extensions of time, or anything else.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, when the noble Marquess referred to the fact that it was a matter for the four Governments, I asked him whether the British Government could not put forward their own view on the matter?
THE EARL OF PERTH: May I answer that point in this way? The Committee is entirely responsible for its own activities. At the same time, when

463
the Report is made it will then be for the British Government to decide what they should do.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will they vote in favour of the publication of the Report when the Committee sits?
THE EARL OF PERTH: When the Report has been received, then will be the time for Her Majesty's Government to consider that; and, as I have said, they will bear very much in mind what the noble Viscount has said.

3½ PER CENT. WAR LOAN
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to consider adding a fixed redemption date for 3½ per cent. War Loan; or alternatively to accept the surrender of the stock at a fixed price for purposes of estate duty.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Government have given much sympathetic consideration to the difficulties of holders of this stock. Dating 3½ per cent. War Loan would, however, be likely to involve an increased burden on the taxpayer when redemption was carried out. Furthermore, such intervention, contrary to the market expectations, would be likely to cause a rise in the price of the stock. It would be unfair that the benefit of this should go to those who bought at recent prices, but not to those who sold recently at a loss. The right of a holder to surrender stock at a fixed price for the purposes of estate duty is a fundamental condition of a stock, determined at the time of issue.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, could the noble Earl say who will be the loser if stock rises in price?
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply, but I would add this. If, as it seems to me, the Government reply is based on the argument that there
464
should not be an alteration in the fundamental conditions of the loan, I would point out that in this particular case there has already been an alteration. Originally, the loan was a 5 per cent. stock with a definite redemption date. Under great pressure from the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Montagu Norman, everybody was told that it was almost a patriotic duty to convert.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT MERSEY: It seems to me that those who took that view have received the worst of both worlds. They bear that burden of an irredeemable stock bearing interest at only 3½ per cent. I wonder whether the noble Earl may not think that this is a case which deserves some further consideration.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in 1932, when conversion took place, every holder of 5 per cent. War Loan was offered repayment at par. The Government were in a position to redeem the 5 per cent. War Loan at par, as they had the right to do, at that time. Those stockholders who did not elect to have their stock redeemed at par were given the option of converting into a new stock on different conditions at 3½ per cent., which was then the prevailing rate of interest, instead of 5 per cent. I think that everybody who either buys or retains an undated Government stock must be aware that the capital value of that stock is bound to go up or down in inverse proportion to the prevailing rate of interest.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be quite impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant this request received from the noble Viscount without giving consideration to the conditions of all the other undated Government stocks?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Viscount is entirely right. I think that it would undermine confidence in the financial proceedings of the Government if they were to favour one particular class of stockholder.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should like to ask whether, if the proposal regarding the 1932 3½ per cent. War stock were adopted, it should not be

465
applied to all other similar stock. There is one notable example, 2½ per cent. Consols, which when I first went to the City forty years ago were called "reduced" Consols and "Goschens". I should also like to ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that only a year ago it was possible to exchange 3½ per cent. War Stock into 3½ per cent. Funding Stock dated 2,004 without any loss, and that that was done on a considerable scale, but that it is not now possible.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the questions of whether stock is dated or not, whether it can be changed into another stock or whether it can be used to repay death duties, are all fixed at the time when the stock is issued, and I do not think that the Government can arbitrarily alter the conditions of a security from time to time to meet isolated requests of this kind.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the proper policy for the Government to pursue is to secure a lower rate of interest?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that that is quite a different question. It is a question that goes to the root of our whole economic policy, but it does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper. The point which affects this Question on the Paper is that when interest rates are high the capital values of all Government stocks are depressed, and when interest rates are low, they go up correspondingly.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would the noble Earl inquire from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, the names of those investors who are willing to lend to the Government at lower rates of interest than there are at present?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as a trustee who lost heavily by the reduction of interest on War Loans after the First World War, I would ask whether there is not a case for special treatment of this kind of stock. If the Government can treat it to the detriment of stockholders, why should they not treat it for the benefit of stockholders?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if the noble Lord had elected to do so in
466
1932, he could then have been paid off at par and could have invested the money in some other stock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I wish to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a Statement on Kenya shortly after 3.30 o'clock. If the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, should have been concluded by then, the House will adjourn during pleasure until my noble friend is ready to make the statement.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Laws and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session:
That the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the said Act be referred to the Joint Committee:
That the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

L. Derwent,

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Terrington,

L. Cawley,

L. Broughshane,

L. Spens;

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question: Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to request them to appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

KING'S LYNN BY-PASS AND NORFOLK ROADS
2.44 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are now proposing to take to expedite the provision of a by-pass road at King's Lynn and to improve road travelling facilities for the rural, industrial and holiday traffic in Norfolk generally; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Last Wednesday we discussed at length a Motion by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the question of road and rail communications, and I feel that perhaps I should not be troubling your Lordships now with a Motion which deals with matters which might be thought to be only on a county or parochial level. But in tabling my Motion it was thought that if I had raised this point last Wednesday it would have been lost in the general debate, and the matter which I have to bring forward is of some importance to a great number of people in East Anglia.
In concluding his speech, my noble friend made reference to the intention of the Government regarding future road and rail facilities as outlined in the gracious Speech. I would call to my aid that paragraph which tells us that the Government, in order to develop a sound system of communications throughout the country, will press forward with their policy of building new highways and improving existing roads. The intention of the Government by this reference seems clear. It is not limited to the main arteries of traffic or to the great trunk roads or the new motorways, but embraces the roads of our rural areas, our main county and secondary roads and, where needed, new roads to be constructed or existing roads improved. There is room for much improvement in many of our local county roads. On this basis I seek the indulgence of your Lordships for a reasonably short time in calling the attention of the Government and your Lordships to the transport difficulties which have arisen and increased in the area covered by my Motion. Some of your Lordships may have similar problems in your own districts, and my moving this Motion may encourage you
468
to bring these problems before the House on another occasion.
There is another reason which I think will excuse my trespass on the time of your Lordships. It is a belief I hold that it is our duty not only to concern ourselves with great international and national problems which are brought to our notice for consideration and sometimes solution, but to spare some time in dealing with matters which may on sight appear to those who are not immediately concerned with them to be of minor importance. Everyday problems of a comparatively simple nature may assume larger proportions for those people who are directly in contact with and are affected by their impact. It redounds to our credit as a democracy, in my view, that whether the difficulty be small or large, appropriate consideration for its solution can be given by the Crown, the law or by Parliament. Your Lordships' House will lose nothing of its prestige, dignity or value in our national life by consideration of what I have to put before you this afternoon, and, with your goodwill, I will proceed.
It is on record that the question of the King's Lynn by-pass has been raised in your Lordship's House before both by the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, and by me. But since questions were put to the Government and answered, traffic conditions in this town and neighbourhood have progressively worsened. It may be said that this fact is common to most districts, but I am encouraged to bring the matter before your Lordships because we now have a new Government, with a new Minister, who may have new intentions and new thoughts in order to cater for our national needs. Therefore I think we are entitled to ask the Government what action is to be taken to expedite the position of this long-delayed and now urgent necessity and amenity. I believe it has been programmed to commence between 1961 and 1975. The year 1975 is a long way off, and unless we can make a start within a reasonable time we shall still have to wait many years for the improvement which is so necessary. It is obvious that the construction of a new motorway is more spectacular and of greater interest (as was shown only on Sunday last) than the provision of a by-pass around a country town, however

469
great and acute the need for the latter may be.
King's Lynn and the difficulties of passing through the town by road may be known to many of your Lordships but not to others. In order to support my application, I will briefly describe the present circumstances. Its railway station, into which run lines from four different directions, is a dead end; there are no through trains. That, I know, is applicable to many of our stations, but it creates a difficulty, so far as I am concerned, in this application. There are three level crossings in the town and all trains entering King's Lynn station have to run over a level crossing about 200 yards outside the station, and repeat this operation on leaving. In addition, shunting in connection with the docks, manure works and sugar beet factory, all fairly large concerns, as well as main line shunting, takes place over this crossing. For long periods therefore, during the day and night the level crossing gates, which are still man-operated, have to be closed. Within my own knowledge, for nearly fifty years consideration has been given to the possibility of constructing a road bridge over this crossing. It might have been accomplished many years ago at a reasonable cost, but now the adjoining land has been developed any such scheme of building a bridge at this point would be costly and no doubt difficult. It is a pity, perhaps, that those responsible in the many years past did not have the foresight to construct bypass roads around many of our cities and towns, which would have avoided many of the difficulties that are now with us.
Not only has the volume of road traffic through King's Lynn been increased by natural means, but the closing of a long length of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway from Lincolnshire to North Norfolk has drawn more private and commercial traffic on to the roads of the town and district. There is exceptionally heavy week-end traffic during the summer months from the Midlands to the coastal towns and villages of North and East Norfolk. In passing through King's Lynn, sonic of this traffic may be held up at each of the three level crossings, and on a summer's evening it is no uncommon sight to see a queue of cars, bumper to bumper, stretching for three or four miles outside the town.
470
Those of your Lordships who know the position of Sandringham will realise the length of this particular queue when I tell you that I have myself seen it extending from King's Lynn nearly to Sandringham.
Hold-ups at the level crossings also seriously affect local and private business traffic, and in the course of a year thousands of man-hours must be lost waiting for trains to pass and the gates to open. To minimise this, and to endeavour to keep traffic moving, it is proposed that a by-pass should be constructed. I understand that it will be just outside the town, will extend for five miles, and will go round King's Lynn on three sides. It will connect up with seven main roads. For costing purposes, it will be divided apparently into two sections, one being the responsibility of the Government and the other that of the Norfolk County Council subject, I expect, to a 75 per cent. Government grant. It is, of course, obvious that although the road will be in two sections, it must be constructed as one. Traffic census figures will shortly be available for the consideration of the Ministers, and when these are produced I feel they will substantiate the case for immediate consideration, approval and commencement of the scheme. I believe that a few minor alterations are likely to be carried out immediately, but these will make no impact whatever upon the main problem.
Perhaps I may digress for a moment from my main point. A few days ago I was driving between Newmarket and Royston, and I noticed that at the small village of Whittleford, where there is a level crossing at the station on the main line from Liverpool Street to Cambridge, a new road was being constructed, obviously as a by-pass, to cross the railway by means of a bridge. The rail and road traffic at that spot cannot bear comparison with that at King's Lynn, and if ministerial approval has been given to that project, a similar favour might reasonably be conferred upon the road users in Norfolk. Newmarket is no more important than King's Lynn. It is true to say that we have, over a period of years, made considerable contribution to the Road Fund, as indeed have motor vehicle owners in other rural areas, and we should therefore be glad to receive a

471
similar benefit as has been conferred upon another rural district.
My Lords, I come now to the second portion of my Motion. This arises by reason of the closing of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, to which I have already referred, and the earlier closing of another branch line in my own district. If I restrict my disapproval of the action of the authorities concerned in closing the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway to the one word, "regrettable" it does not represent at all what I really feel about the matter, and the manner in which it was apparently conceived and carried out. People who live in rural areas, and who do not own cars or other conveyances, must rely upon train or bus services to undertake their business, family or social commitments. I understand that when this branch line was closed arrangements were made for adequate bus facilities to be provided in exchange. It is now proposed that these services should be curtailed. Already some villages in that district have only one return bus a week. This proposal is causing much concern among the inhabitants of the areas affected, and meetings have been held by local authorities, chambers of commerce and others, at which expression of opposition and regret have been registered. I believe that resolutions have been sent to the Government by these bodies.
The closing of railways and the curtailment of bus services are adversely affecting the trade and prosperity of the country towns and creating difficulties as regards goods deliveries. I am informed that since the closing of the railway the delivery of goods has been much delayed. National and monopoly undertakings should not be governed entirely by financial or economic considerations, and when the question of service to the public arises, as it so often does, then in my opinion the interest of those who by force of circumstances must depend upon the efficiency of that service should not pass unnoticed. This does not appear to be the case in the incidents which I have quoted; and if the Minister has any authority and influence in the matter I hope he will be able to bring these to bear in the interest of those who otherwise may suffer much inconvenience and loss.
In conclusion, I would tell your Lordships that I suffer in no way by the non-provision of a by-pass at King's Lynn, or by the curtailment of road and rail services in North Norfolk. I have tried to put before your Lordships a fairly stated case in the interests of those amongst whom it is my pleasure and privilege to live. Their needs are such that they cannot be treated as being without any degree of priority or early consideration. I therefore speak here in your Lordships' House on their behalf, and in the hope that the Minister will be able to issue some statement which will show to the people of North Norfolk that their needs are being considered and that action will be taken. I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, perhaps I may for a few minutes endeavour to reinforce the strong plea which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has made for those who suffer from the at present inadequate communication in that part of the world. The noble Lord is particularly qualified to voice the opinions of his neighbours, as no one in that part of the world has a greater agrarian experience than himself, although I am sure that many of your Lordships have been to the East Coast for your holidays and must know it as well as we do.
I would point out that in the old days Norfolk was always thought of as an island because of the amount of water that surrounded it, almost on all sides. The progress of drainage has meant that the roads crossing the watery spaces or the rivers are few in number, and they have to enter that part of the world through what I might call "gates"—the gates, of course, being the bridges. The bridges over the Ouse and at Downham Market admit all the traffic, not only from the West Midlands but from the north—those people who want to come down to our more salubrious parts—and also from the south west; they all have to come through those "gates". This town has tried and failed to accommodate this, at times, very heavy traffic, and the traffic that comes has nothing to do with the town. If your Lordships look at the road system of Norfolk and the coastline, you will see that we are a cul de sac, and we have not, as other

473
counties have, graceful roads aiming at distinct points of popular interest. Our road system is higgledy-piggledy, so to speak, and does not maintain a general direction for any length of time.
In regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Motion, it seems to me that, a nationalised service having been withdrawn, the Government have not realised that it has left the people of that part of the world dependent on an old-fashioned road system, very narrow roads, some of them badly kept up, which do not and cannot accommodate the traffic that now wants to come to our parts. If a nationalised service is withdrawn, it would appear that in its place at least something should be provided. More should be given to be spent on lengths of trunk roads to help out the county councils, who in future will have only the block grant and who at present can find only enough money—indeed, not enough as it is—for their "domestic" system of roads. They do need from the centre some help in this dilemma, which has arisen through the withdrawal of a nationalised service. There are two things. There is the improving of the roads and the encouraging of the private bus companies, which, as your Lordships have heard, have curtailed their services. They should be encouraged to spend money on new buses and encouraged to resurrect a system of communications which can be of use to the people.
In regard to King's Lynn itself, I will liken it to our old friend the cattle bridge, which prevents certain people from going across it. The "cattle bridges" in this case are the railway crossings; and, as the noble Lord has said, they prevent a great mass of people from gaining access to where they want to go without having to pass through that very narrow-streeted town. The other part of the "cattle bridge" is the hard metal road which invariably goes to one side of it. That is what we want. With those few words, I ask the benevolence of the Front Bench to look at this question again, because I am quite sure that something should be done to make life easier for those who are resident there, and also for those—many of them dragging a great big caravan behind with their family in it—wishing to reach the destinations where we are very glad to welcome them.
3.7 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, as the list of speakers is so short may I crave the indulgence of the House to intervene in this debate for a few minutes? The noble Lord, Lord Wise, has admitted that the question which is raised in his Motion is one that applies not only to Norfolk but to the whole country, and therefore it is a question that involves some very fundamental principles in regard to road transport.
What I want to say includes a comment upon the attitude of mind that is very prevalent at the present moment in high official circles with regard to the whole question of motor transport in this country and the matter of speed and facilities in general. I know that I am an old reactionary, but I believe that bypasses are better than race-courses, and I think that the expenditure of the money we are proposing to spend, which we are called upon to spend, on these monstrous highways, flyovers, and the rest of it, which are so much in the public eye, and which are illustrated in an exhibition in another place at the present moment, is wasteful and unnecessary; and it will not really solve any rational problem whatever. It is true that there are many motorists—I am sure a minority, but still a very pervading minority—who have a complex, an urgency complex: they have the itch for speed for its own sake. I feel that public money ought not to be spent in such vast quantities in order to cater for that type of motorist.
I know that there is a problem, but when the noble Lord, Lord Wise, talks about saving man-hours, what does he mean? What does anyone mean when that kind of language is used? Whose man-hours are saved, and to what extent are they saved? Will anyone tell me that the future of British industry depends upon saving split seconds of time? To me that seems to be a great illusion. I know that on the roads there is a great deal of congestion caused by traffic of a commercial character which ought to go on the railways and which certainly ought to be diverted to the railways. Apart from that, what is this question of time and speed in relation to public facilities? The real problem is not in the roads and in the quickness with which motorists can travel; the problem is that of pricking the blisters at each end, and we are, comparatively

475
speaking, doing practically nothing to relieve the whole source of this problem of traffic congestion.
I suggest that it is possible to spend the money more usefully in developing alternative routes, not only by building by-passes but by modernising and linking up roadways in such a way as to provide all that any rational person could want in order to get from place to place in this country. I feel perfectly sure about that. I frequently travel from London to the South Coast and back, and I think I could safely undertake to say that, apart from the main roads to Brighton, Hastings or Folkestone, it would be possible to provide at least four alternative routes by a little linking up and modernising at a fraction of the money that we are going to spend upon these "race-courses". I firmly believe that, and I think that that ought to be done.
When I speak of an illusion, I am reminded of an incident only a week or two ago when I was travelling from Brighton to London. In front of us was a busy little car which, judging from the confetti one saw about the car itself, obviously contained a honeymoon couple. It was nosing in and out, catching up wherever it could, just like some of the motor cyclists do, in and out all over the place, nervously anxious to get in front of everybody else. I do not know whether in any circumstances a honeymoon is really necessary, but I am perfectly sure that the amenities of the honeymoon have nothing whatsoever to do with the amenities of the road. From what I saw of the couple as we passed them, they were beginning to enjoy those amenities long before they reached London. But the point is that when we got, I think, to Putney Bridge—at any rate to one of the bridges—with all their trouble and anxiety to get in front of everybody their car was only immediately in front of us. What did they save? Of course they were stopped by traffic lights as they came near to London, but if they had got through all the time, how much time would they have saved? It is quite an illusion. There was an article in the News Chronicle only yesterday in which young motor-cyclists were quoted, expressing their views about the amenities of the road. They were talking glibly about
476
80 to 100 miles an hour and more, with pillion riders on their motor-cycles. Is it proposed to finance that from public funds to the extent of millions and millions of pounds?
I suggest that that is nonsense and that it would be a good idea to probe into the subject. I know it is not an easy one. I do not want to be unrealistic; I know that the problem does exist. But I think that we could appoint our experts and get the help of people who know the problem better than I could possibly know it from a technical point of view, to find out how far it would be possible not to drive these, to me at any rate, from an æsthetic point of view, unsightly roads from London to Birmingham and elsewhere upon the pretext that it makes an enormous difference to British industry. I do not believe that it makes anything of the kind. I think that there should be a system of road transport in which it is possible to control traffic and to cut it down to a reasonable level of speed. I think that 80 to 100 m.p.h. is an unreasonable level and ought not to be tolerated in our imagination when we are discussing a problem such as has been raised in a local way by my noble friend Lord Wise.
3.25 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I channel your minds away from the honeymooners over Putney Bridge back to the small area of Norfolk? The greatest talking point in Norfolk over the past 15 months or so has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said, the closing of the M. & G.N. line. I do not wish to jump into the controversy whether or not that was a good or a wise thing to do, but merely to state two facts that arise from it: first, that adequate provision must be made for the traffic that used to be on the railway and which is now turned on to the roads; and secondly, that the main road from the East Coast to the Midlands must be made into a really modern and effective roadway.
I should like to pay tribute to the amount of work that has been done on modernising the A.47, but I would urge Her Majesty's Government to see that the rest of it is modernised as soon as possible. There is one particular place that I have in mind near Wendling where there are six vicious bends that

477
follow one after the other, yet apparently no remedy seems to have been forthcoming. This must be the worst stretch of road between Norwich and King's Lynn, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that more attention is given to it in the near future. I have often thought that it would be possible to encourage traffic to use the other alternative route to the Midlands via Thetford and Downham Market. It is an excellent road. This could well be done if traffic were encouraged to use it by signposting.
We in Norfolk have seen many improvements carried out on the roads just lately. I should like to congratulate not only the Government but also the Norfolk County Council on the work that they have done in this respect, and, indeed, to thank them for making the roads that much safer and that much better. I must confess that I cannot agree with all that has been done. I find it difficult to understand why practically every road improvement that is carried out always stops short at a bad bend. It seems a strange state of affairs when one endeavours to take the bends out of the roads, that the improvements always stop short at the bend. It is also the fact that nine out of ten new roads that are made across fields always have a bend put in them. I do not know whether it will be possible in the future for more care to be taken when new roads are built that they should at least be built straight.
When there is so much anxiety over the building of new roads and when money to build them is so hard to come by, it is difficult to find any form of justification for the type of road that has recently been built across Seething aerodrome. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord who is going to reply—I do not expect that he can reply to this point to-day—will look into the matter and give me some reasons for it. Seething aerodrome is an old and disused aerodrome, with over six miles of concrete roadway on it. Somebody has recently seen fit to drive another roadway across it. The point is that this new roadway is about three-quarters of a mile long and runs fairly parallel to an existing runway. The new road is five yards wide, and the runway is 50 yards wide. The new road twists and turns, and the runway is absolutely dead
478
straight. I can see no justification for having spent money on a brand new roadway when there is a perfectly good runway by its side which might well have been used, and when the money which has been spent on this new roadway could well have been spent on getting rid of the hazards on other main roads which exist in Norfolk. This new roadway, in any event, is going to be used by very few people indeed.
There is one point which I feel would greatly simplify and ease travel over the roads in Norfolk—and I believe this does not apply only to Norfolk. Certainly it will apply very much more strongly in future, and I feel that it deserves at least the consideration of the noble Lord's Department. I refer to the location of bus stops. It is a very odd thing that in our part of the world practically every country bus stop is located on either a corner or a cross roads. This, needless to say, is exceedingly dangerous for everyone, and not least for the people using the buses. It seems to me that the motto of those whose job it is to place bus stops is, "If in doubt, choose a bend". It is a point which I personally feel could be a very serious one, because in our part of the world almost every bus stop is on a bend.
It could justly be said that the bus service in Norfolk is but fair, but it is a matter on which it is considerably easier to criticise than to suggest or give advice for its improvement. I appreciate that these services must be run economically, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government bear some onus of responsibility to see that rural areas are adequately and properly provided with public transport. Particularly is this so when, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said, so many railways have recently been closed down. Numbers of people used those railways, and though they may not have been economic in their use they were at least useful and at times vital to those using them. A situation in which the population are without adequate alternative transport is one which should be remedied as far as possible. There are many villages without any form of transport and some which have buses only once a week or once a month.
I should like also to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether any serious thought is being given to the hazards of

479
the winter, because in our climate snow, while it is not continuous, is certainly commonplace; and it is a curious thing that in Norfolk whenever there is a snowstorm the traffic situation is plunged into complete chaos. If we get more than about two inches of snow traffic virtually stops. I remember that two years ago there was what was called a "freeze-up" for two weeks and buses could hardly get to their destinations. Farmers were taking their milk on trailers and villagers were cut off from electricity and telephones. The Post Office even refused to take any telegrams for delivery there because they could not get them through. In this country, where snow is a commonplace, it does seem that we should have some effective means of dealing with it. I would ask the noble Earl whether it is not possible for us to learn from other countries whose winters are considerably harder than ours and see whether we cannot make some provision, such as modern snow-ploughs, to counteract this trouble and to keep traffic moving during the winter.
One final subject I would mention is the inevitable plea for signposting, particularly signposting of smaller roads. In Norfolk we have our full quota of small roads and it is not only the visitors who get lost; that happens even to those who live in the area. I remember once coming up to four crossroads and looking at a signpost which bore five arms. There was one arm for each road and the name of the village to which I was hoping to get was on the fifth arm, which pointed straight across an open field. That is not very commonplace and I believe it has been put right; but it is a common fallacy that road signposting is now very good. In general it is, but there are many places where it leaves a great deal to be desired.

KENYA: REVOCATION OF EMERGENCY REGULATIONS
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission perhaps I might interrupt the debate and read the promised statement on Kenya and the revocation of the Emergency Regulations there. A similar statement has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place.
It is just over seven years since the Governor was compelled to assume emergency powers in Kenya. With the improvement of the situation in recent years, it has been possible to abandon some controls and to apply others less widely. But the major emergency powers have nearly all had to be retained. The Governor has to-day announced, with the authority of Her Majesty's Government, that as soon as the necessary Bills can be passed to maintain the few special measures to which I shall refer, and provided that there is no deterioration in the situation, the operation of Part II of the Emergency Powers Orders in Council will be terminated and all the remaining Emergency Regulations will be revoked.
Of the emergency powers assumed seven years ago the more stringent is that to detain persons without trial. Those who have studied the Report of the Fairn Committee will know the Committee felt that the Kenya Government was right in its policy of keeping under control those who are irreconcilably attached to Mau Mau. It follows that a remnant of those at present held will have to be kept in restraint for some time to come. The Kenya Government is therefore introducing into the Legislative Council a Special Bill which will enable the social and psychological task of reintegrating these men into the community to be pursued, while at the same time maintaining the necessary controls over those who still remain unreconciled and unacceptable to their own people. The Bill will be restricted to persons now under control and to listed fugitives still at large. Otherwise, the Governor will relinquish his present emergency powers of detention and restriction.
Among other powers which will lapse are those to proscribe local publications, to license printing presses, to control

481
Kikuyu movement by passbooks, to impose emergency communal labour, and to require the Kikuyu to live in the villages. This new policy clearly involves risks against which it is only prudent to insure. The Kenya Government has accordingly published a Bill under which the Governor may, after giving due public notice, take such measures for the preservation of public security as appear to be strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. This Bill seeks to meet the problem, to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies referred in another place last week, of putting reasonable and flexible powers in the hands of a Governor to deal with abnormal conditions threatening security which do not justify the use of the sledge-hammer of the Emergency Powers Order in Council. My right honourable friend is glad that the Governor feels that present circumstances require the use of this new Ordinance to continue only two special security measures when the Emergency Regulations lapse: to maintain a stricter control than exists in permanent law over public meetings, and over the registration of political associations. Special security powers may from time to time be unavoidable; but the first defence of any society against threats to good order and government must be adequate provision and resolute enforcement of the ordinary criminal law.
The Governor has to-day also announced his intention, by the exercise of his prerogative powers, to release from imprisonment during the next six weeks all those, numbering about 2,500 people, who have committed offences connected with the Emergency on both sides. About 120 of these are deeply imbued with Mau Mau, including 16 convicted murderers, and they will be detained but will become eligible for rehabilitation and in due course for release. Six are loyalist Africans or Government servants who have committed serious offences upon Mau Mau sympathisers in detention camps or elsewhere. In addition to this, the Governor expects that by the end of the year about 500 of those at present detained or restricted will be released through the reviews recommended by the Fairn Committee. I understand that the Attorney-General of Kenya has decided, in view of the
482
Governor's action, to institute no further proceedings in respect of offences connected with the Emergency committed before to-day.
The aim of these measures is to bring to a close the unhappy chapter of the past seven years, and to encourage the whole Kenya nation to turn together to the constructive tasks of the future.
3.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that in all parts of the House your Lordships will welcome, in general, the statement made by the Secretary of State in another place and repeated to us in this House to-day. We should all join in the last few words the noble Earl has uttered, and hope that the steps that are being taken will bring to a close the unhappy chapter of the past seven years. There have been great criticisms from time to time as to why it has been necessary to maintain such a state of emergency for so long. Undoubtedly there have been very serious difficulties to contend with, and some of the incidents which have happened have been the subject of great criticism in this country.
I should like to ask just one or two questions about details of the statement. First, I would refer to the special Bill which is to be introduced into the Legislative Council to give certain powers for continuing the treatment of those who are kept in internment and trying to get them ready for reintegration into the general society of the State there. Of course that Bill will be based, we take it, upon the recommendations of the Fairn Committee. But what I should like to ask is this: is the noble Earl aware yet whether that Bill will contain regulations that will make quite sure that the offences which undoubtedly were committed against the prisoners in Hola Camp will not be likely to be repeated? Is there to be a set of provisions in the Bill which will set down specific regulations to be followed by those who are employed in the work of these particular institutions?
The next question there that I would ask is this. Is there anything that does not quite appear on the surface, after the disappearance of the present state

483
of emergency, when a new Bill is introduced into the Kenya Legislature which is to give specific powers, under a local legislative Bill, to the Governor in order that he may take suitable action in the case of some sudden incident or emergency which has to be met? Is there to be a different procedure from that which has hitherto been followed by a Governor of the Crown in any overseas territory of this kind? And will it in any sense give him a permanent power which he will operate at any time without consultation with the Secretary of State here? That is rather an important point. If so, will he be then free from criticism of his action by the Secretary of State? And if the procedure is to be so segregated from the usual procedure, will that be removed from the possibility of ordinary criticism in the British Parliament? We have had so much reaction in this country against some of the things that have happened overseas in the last few years that I feel it is rather fundamental that we should understand clearly what the Government have in mind at the present time as to the powers of the Governor, what is the authority, and how that authority will be treated in the future. I hope it may be possible for the noble Earl to give me some information on these points.
3.45 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is sometimes rather difficult, when one rises from the Liberal Benches to answer a Minister of the Crown who has given all the points in favour of a matter, when the noble Viscount who leads for the Opposition has stolen all the points against it, and to make a selective choice of something that would be of use to the House. In the present instance I would say that this statement which the noble Earl has made rejoices the hearts of all of us on these Benches. If I may say so, quite humbly, we hope that the very liberal attitude taken in this matter will be borne in mind when the Government are dealing with other places in the Commonwealth. It is sometimes claimed by both the major Parties that the mantle of Liberalism has fallen upon them—both of them, I gather—but it does not always cover them completely, and there are sometimes cases of almost indecent exposure. In this case I would say the mantle has
484
fallen very well on the shoulders of the Government, and I would express my pleasure that the noble Earl, with such liberal antecedents, has probably had something to do with this matter.
3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am sure we are very glad to have that reception for the statement I have made on the relaxation of the Emergency Regulations; and I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what he has said, although I do not think that I personally should take any credit for what has been announced. On the two points raised by the noble Viscount, I am not clear that it would be necessary to have any special Bill, or any special provision in the Bill, about the treatment of prisoners and so forth as recommended by the Fairn Committee. My reason for saying that is that the Kenya Government have already considered the Report of the Fairn Committee, and have adopted and accepted the various recommendations made by the Committee, and are already following them out as a matter of practice. So, whether it is necessary to do anything more in the way of giving them effect in the Bill, I do not know. What I think is important arising from the noble Viscount's question is that what is recommended by the Fairn Committee is being carried out; whether it be done ad hoc or by the Bill I do not think matters as much.
On the second question raised I would say this. Of course one remembers that Part I of the Emergency Regulations remains, which always allows Part II—though I hope this will not happen—to be invoked as an enabling power a second time; but in the meanwhile it is hoped that the "sledge-hammer" would not be necessary. As was said in the statement, there will be two special security measures passed by legislation. One of those will be to maintain a stricter control than exists in permanent law over public meetings, and the other over registration of political associations; and that is all. Those are the only two immediate powers, outside the normal ones, which the Governor is proposing to take, apart of course from the one I mentioned about detention, which I elaborated on at some length in the statement. I am quite certain it always has been and always will be open to this

485
House, or the other House, to ask questions about what is happening in the colonial territories. Nothing, I am sure, will detract from that.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will the text of those two important Bills be made available to Members of the House?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I will certainly find out whether that is possible. Of course they are Kenya Bills—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Of course.
THE EARL OF PERTH: —but for your Lordships' convenience, I am sure that we can arrange to have them laid or in some way made available to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer and I shall read it carefully, so that I can fully understand it. But I want to point out that the statement says:
"This Bill seeks to meet the problem, to which my right honourable friend … referred in another place last week, of putting reasonable and flexible powers in the hands of a Governor to deal with abnormal conditions threatening security which do not justify the use of the sledge-hammer of the Emergency Powers Order in Council."
But surely such a wide phrase as "reasonable and flexible powers" is not confined to these two specific instances which he has just mentioned?
THE EARL OF PERTH: That is quite true; those powers are not so confined, but the present purpose of them is that they should be confined to these two points. But, clearly, if something else happens then it will be made known, and the opportunity to use them further will arise.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I still want to know whether, in such circumstances, the Governor is likely to consult the Secretary of State before he does it.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I have no doubt that he will be telling the Secretary
486
of State what he has in mind in those circumstances.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, whilst welcoming the statement and the very happy situation that appears from it, may I ask the noble Earl what is the position, under this statement, of the leaders of the Kikuyu, such as Jomo Kenyatta? Will they be released? May I ask, secondly, whether, under the statement, it is now the position that no African in Kenya will be obliged to carry a pass?
THE EARL OF PERTH: If I may deal with the second part first, that is my understanding. In regard to Jomo Kenyatta and certain others of the Kikuyu leaders, the answer there is that they are not covered by the Emergency Regulations. They were tried by a number of different processes other than the Emergency Regulations. Kenyatta was tried and convicted, and has served his term of imprisonment. Then, following the recommendations of the Court, he was restricted; and that restriction will remain.
LORD OGMORE: Would it not be an important accessory to the situation created under this statement that a leader such as Jomo Kenyatta, and the others with him, should be released? Is it going to be possible to do what the Government wants without releasing these men?
THE EARL OF PERTH: That remains to be seen; but at the present time there is no doubt that Kenyatta and the others with him will remain under restriction—and I think that that is necessary for the peace and good order of the Colony.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl could give us any idea of the way in which the orders dealing with public meetings and the registration of political associations will differ from the ordinary powers that exist in any case under the law?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think not at the moment but the noble Viscount has asked that when these Bills are published we should see them, and I think that that will be the time to look into the matter further.

KING'S LYNN BY-PASS AND NORFOLK ROADS
3.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in the debate on the Motion which is down on the Paper. I want only to make a comment on the interesting speeches that we have had from the noble Lord opposite and from the noble Earl behind me. Both of them greatly widened the scope of the Motion on the Paper, though I think that none of your Lordships would complain of that, especially as they made excellent speeches. That is one of the advantages of our proceedings here: that one has that right, that admitted right, rather to widen a discussion. What I was going to say—and I will detain your Lordships only for a moment or so—is that both noble Lords have raised matters of very great importance which I would suggest, with respect, should form the basis of a full debate in your Lordships' House. I think that it would require almost a two-day debate; because most of the debates which we have on road questions, if I may say so without offence, are almost entirely conducted by Members of your Lordships' House who have a perfectly legitimate interest in motoring and who put the point of view of the motorists. But, as the noble Lord opposite so truly pointed out, there are other considerations to be taken into account.
May I give one example? One gets constant complaints—my noble friend Lord Hives, if he were present, would agree with me that he, among others, has often complained—about the congestion in the London streets. That congestion is largely caused by the unnecessary action of motorists themselves. A great number of people who park their cars in the West End of London could perfectly well use public transport from the suburbs, and elsewhere. When the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, speaks of certain things which ought to be done in the counties, may I respectfully remind him that several of the matters that he mentioned are nothing to do with the Ministry of Transport; they are within the purview of the London road authority. If in Norfolk they do not provide proper appliances to deal with snow—I agree with him that in the country generally we are very behindhand
488
in these matters—it is not a matter for the Ministry of Transport; it is a matter for the local authority to deal with.
There is only one other thing I want to say. I am sorry that there is no advocate of motoring present in your Lordships' House to challenge me—I am sorry: I had forgotten that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was present, but I do not think he will disagree with what I am about to say. When we get these constant demands for more and more public money to be spent on roads, let us remember that even in this prosperous country there is a limit to what we can spend; and I should have thought that there were other things which needed money spent on them far more than roads. One is hospitals; another is new gaols. Many of our gaols are completely out of date. Another is barracks. Ask any member of any of Her Majesty's Forces one of the reasons why recruiting is not better, and he will tell you that it is because of the inadequacy of barracks, and especially of married quarters. There are dozens of such things which need money spent on them.
I am very much obliged to your Lordships for listening to my few rather desultory remarks, but I hope that one day we shall have a full debate on this very big issue. The sort of question we ought to discuss is: what is going to be the effect of what I think is known as the "hover-craft", which in a few years' time may take the place of the motor car? It cannot be considered in isolation. It has to be considered, as the noble Lord opposite has so properly and appositely brought out, in connection with other matters. I think that we all sympathise with the noble Lord who moved the Motion on the Paper and with the noble Lords who have supported him; but, as I say, the problem goes much further than local matters.
3.58 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, when I first saw the terms of the Motion set down by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, I am bound to admit that the first thing that flew into my mind was that it was a case of
"Thrice armed is he who hath his quarrel just;
Four times is he who gets his blow in fust!"

489
Then I was struck by the horrible thought that this might be the first of no fewer than 97 debates which might take a similar course in your Lordships' House in the near future, although possibly my noble friends Lord Brecon and Lord Craigton might be responsible for answering some. But I do hope, my Lords, that some other way can be found.
My Lords, it so happens that I myself know Norfolk fairly well, through having an uncle who lives there, and I have always thought that in fact the road system of the county was a reasonably good one. I do not, by that statement, attempt to deny that the noble Lord "bath his quarrel just", and I am quite sure that it must be true that there are a number of places—quite a large number—where work is highly desirable; and I am sure that he has done right in directing our attention to it. He quoted in his aid a paragraph from the gracious Speech, and I do not attempt to deny that that paragraph means what it says. The only qualification I do make is that the whole thing cannot be done at once.
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord realises that the country's road problem generally has to be concentrated on where it will give the quickest returns to the country as a whole for the money that is spent. I do not think it can be disputed that at present the first priority is to free the main routes used by industrial traffic, and a comprehensive picture of the rôle of the present trunk road system and the nature of the traffic using it has been built up. The needs of the whole country have to be looked at in considering the allotment of money to specific schemes or areas. With the policy of tackling first things first, inevitably there must be many areas in the country in which less road work is going on in the present circumstances which fall just a little short of Utopia.
I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to take that as too discouraging a statement. I want to assure him that we are aware of the need for the King's Lynn by-pass and of the fact that it is the only real solution to King's Lynn's problems. I do not think that the noble Lord will wish me to attempt to discuss the detailed points he made. I will
490
only emphasise that it has to be fitted into the complexity of the necessary work that has to be done all over the country. The present situation with regard to the by-pass—which, as the noble Lord rightly said, is a joint affair between my right honourable friend and the county authority—is that the traffic count he mentioned as having been taken by the County Council was to provide data for the review of the priority of the by-pass. The results of the survey have not yet been sent to my right honourable friend, and until they are received and have been considered I am sure the noble Lord will not expect me to be able to say anything about the priority of the by-pass.
May I go on to deal with the county in general? At the present time works which I think will be of benefit to all classes of road user are going on as fast as they can. I do not think that the noble Lord will wish me to go into a lengthy list of detailed schemes, with which he is just as familiar as I am, probably more so; but I should like to say that since 1946 some 76 miles of trunk roads, out of a total of 120 miles for which my right honourable friend is responsible have been reconstructed. There are major improvement works taking place now on trunk roads to the value of some £140,000 and on classified roads to the tune of about £190,000.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In Norfolk?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, in Norfolk. It is also hoped that in the next year or two at least eleven major schemes, both on trunk and classified roads, will be put in hand.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned a proposed scheme of which he did not approve. I am caught with my own boast about knowing Norfolk well because I do not know that bit, but I will do my best to look into the matter and let the noble Earl know something, if I can. I was a little surprised about his desire for the Government to assume an all-powerful rôle in his life. Of course, the matter of the location of bus stops was one that was raised last week, among many others, and I assure him that it is one that will not be overlooked in the general consideration. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, pointed out to the

491
noble Earl that snow clearing and signposts were matters for the county councils, and I hope that he will promptly take action where appropriate.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said, but my remarks must stop at interest, because I think that the proper thing is to consider the noble Lord's Motion in the terms in which he put it down. I do not think that it would really be proper to make this Part II of last week's debate or a preamble to a debate which may come in the future.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords may I say that I did ask for the indulgence of the House? I always think as the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said, that one of the good features of debates in this Chamber is that, within reason, one can widen the nature of the debate. I hope that I have not done anything wrong.
LORD CHESHAM: Nothing whatever, my Lords. I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord and the noble Earl received every indulgence from the House. Personally I thought that what they said was of considerable interest, and, whether I agree with it or not, I shall certainly see that their words come to the notice of my right honourable friend. I think that everything should be considered—all grist should go into the mill.
On the question of bus services, on which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, made a point—and at this stage I would thank him for giving me notice of it, as he did about the by-pass—I would say that my right honourable friend has no power to provide or to compel anyone else to provide bus services. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that the provision of services is a matter for the bus operators and the Traffic Commissioners who license the services, and who are an independent statutory body. My right honourable friend has no power to intervene unless a case comes to him on appeal. I would make it clear that he is not in the position of being a kind of referee between two opposing sides and that any appeal which would come to him would be one primarily of a judicial character.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point—
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, could I just finish this point and then I will willingly give way? What I was going to say is that we should like to be as helpful as we can, and if the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, has any particular case of difficulty in mind and would let me know, I would ask the Traffic Commissioners to consider it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord says that his right honourable friend has no power. I think I am right in saying that in this case the British Transport Commission closed down a length of railway line, and the bus service, which was the only alternative, is also run by the Commission. Surely there is not only a moral obligation for the British Transport Commission to provide an alternative service for this rural area which has had its railway service taken away, but also the Transport Act (if my memory serves me) lays down that the Commission must provide a reasonable countrywide transport service.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords. Before giving way to the noble Lord, perhaps it would have been fairer if I had pointed out that after the railway was closed down the British Transport Commission provided extended bus services of a further 116 miles, a weekly mileage of about 11,000.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I understand that it is the basis of my noble friend's complaint that the existing bus services are going to be curtailed and that will deny the rural population of that part of Norfolk a proper and adequate transport system.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will bear with me a moment or two longer, I think that that will come out. I have explained my right honourable friend's position. For all I know, the noble Lord is perfectly right, and possibly there has been an application to curtail these services. If that is so, I think that both noble Lords will agree that it is impossible for me to offer any comment on that, in view of my right honourable friend's position, in that an appeal can be made to him. I cannot say more than that.
EARL WINTERTON: Perhaps I may put one point arising out of the question

493
of the noble Lord opposite. Is it not the real fact that all over England—the same thing is happening in Sussex—bus services are closing down because they are no longer profitable? And is not the reason why they are no longer profitable the increase in the number of people with motor cars? In most villages nowadays there are a number of people, including wage-earners, who own motor cars, and they will not go on the buses.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If I may have the indulgence of your Lordships, I should like to challenge that statement.
EARL WINTERTON: It is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is not so. The reason why bus companies are curtailing their rural services is because the fares have to be augmented from the profits of the thickly populated areas, and the people in the thickly populated areas grumble about having their fares raised.
LORD CHESHAM: If I, in my turn, may have the indulgence of noble Lords, may I say that the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, has made the next part of my speech for me, and, in a sense, it has been completed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Perhaps noble Lords will now be indulgent for a minute while I do the next bit, and it may not be necessary for them to continue. What I was going to say, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, is that if his feelings were not on specific points but on the broader issues based on North Norfolk, there is something else I should have liked to bring to his attention. He knows—we have just been told—that the present position of the bus services is a worry. I think, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may feel, that the great increase in the ownership of cars and motor-cycles has taken trade away, although of course I do not say that what the noble Lord has said is not a factor as well. Some of their routes are unquestionably becoming even more unremunerative than ever they were. We know that they have to take the rough with the smooth, but the rough is getting rougher and the smooth not so smooth. This is bound to happen most in the rural areas, and I agree with the noble Lord that this may well have social effects in the areas. My right honourable friend
494
has set up a Committee on rural bus services, with Professor Jack as Chairman, to look into the whole problem. That Committee is working now and I am sure that they will welcome any representations which the noble Lord cares to make, if he has any.
I hope that I have now said enough to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Wise, that we are well aware of the traffic problems in North Norfolk and have no desire other than that they should be tackled as quickly as they can be, taking into account the needs of the country as a whole. I am bound to say to him that the roads of Norfolk are likely to be of a rather less priority than those in many other parts of the country simply because the main flow of industrial traffic is elsewhere. I know that there are considerable problems arising from what in the past has been called the tidal nature of Norfolk's holiday traffic, but I think—and I hope the noble Lord will agree with me—that the road system of the county is in fact taking its fair share.
4.15 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for the reply he has given. I am sure that all that has passed in this debate will be read with the greatest possible interest by the people concerned in the area. There is some encouragement, although not a lot, from what the noble Lord said in regard to the proposed curtailment of the bus services. I am anxious that the people in rural areas should not suffer in any way, because they are entitled to the same privileges and services as those who live in the cities and towns. It is important for the life of the countryside that we should encourage bus companies to provide these services, and if the Minister can use his good influences with the Traffic Commissioners when they hear of the suggestion, which I believe is being made by the bus company, to curtail its services, then I think this debate will have been worth while, and this will give great satisfaction to those people who may benefit by his intervention.
With regard to the by-pass, I hope that it will not be long delayed. I know that a good deal of money has been spent on the roads of Norfolk and many improvements stand out as having been carried out, but there are many more improvements still to be made in the narrow roads in order to make traffic safe. It

495
is not a question of speed in this county, but of safety. Some of our roads will not admit of two large vehicles passing each other at certain points, but I know that steps are being taken to improve those points. My object this afternoon was to call attention particularly to the need for
496
the by-pass and also to the needs of those who dwell in the country for an adequate bus service. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past four o'clock.