Lords Sitting of 11 May 1961

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell

THE WHITSUN RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement later in the afternoon on security.
I should also like to inform your Lordships that the House will adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday, May 18, and will reassemble on Wednesday, May 31.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Hailsham, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Whitsun for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that. Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday
340
Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Kirkby-in-Ashfield, be approved;
That the order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Winsford, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.

HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY or TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, in introducing this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading, I do not think I need dwell for long on the fundamental reason why it is put forward. The Bill, of course, is to enable my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, to make a site available in Hyde Park for an underground garage. I think that quite enough has been said in the past—and it has been said by a number of your Lordships, particularly those who support the motoring interest—upon the point that the provision of off-street parking is a highly important factor in our efforts to battle against traffic congestion in London. I am sure that I need say no more to justify that. But while I may remind your Lordships that we regard off-street parking as a local authority responsibility, and also a field for private enterprise, I emphasise most strongly that the Government are determined to encourage the provision of these essential facilities, and I shall hope to show your Lordships that the Bill makes a positive contribution in this respect.

341
The growth of parking meters in the interest of freeing the streets of London has been a quick one. In 1958, there were 647 in operation. By the end of last year there were 4,659, and I expect that by the end of 1961 there will be nearly 12,000 in the London area. This restriction of parking, together with the charge that is made for it, has stimulated both the demand for off-street accommodation and the incentive to provide it. I think I might put in at this point that in Central London, where the problem is most acute, local authorities and private enterprise are getting on quite well with the job of planning the off-street car parks. The inner London area, the City of London, Westminster, Marylebone, Holborn, St. Pancras and Finsbury have plans in various stages, sometimes in association with private enterprise and sometimes not, for over 13,000 new car spaces. But in some areas it is more difficult; suitable sites are not very easy to find. This Bill tackles the particularly difficult problem of finding sites in Mayfair. It would provide for a garage to be in the North-East corner of Hyde Park, which is well sited for Mayfair, or most of it, and particularly well sited for the hotels in Park Lane and in Oxford Street. It will also be of service, of course, for areas North of the Park.
It was as long ago as 1951 that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee advocated underground garages beneath the parks, but it is much more recently that the parking meter control has raised demand to an extent where it makes the idea commercially feasible. We have been taking soundings about this, and they indicate that there are now good prospects—I think "good" is definitely the right word—that a garage under Hyde Park would be a commercially viable proposition. The whole concept of an underground garage beneath the parade ground in the vicinity of Speaker's Corner has been discussed in the greatest detail between my right honourable friends the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Works, and they are both satisfied that an acceptable scheme can be devised without undue harm to the amenities of the Park or ill-effect on the traffic flow on the roads near by. The prime objective, if I may put it briefly and succinctly, is to get a good garage in being for public use as quickly as
342
possible, with, at the same time, full protection for park amenities; and to get it in such a way that it is a good bargain for the public purse.
The Bill itself is purely an enabling Bill. It is needed in this form because there are longstanding statutory restrictions on the powers of the Crown to dispose of land in the Royal Parks, whether by lease or in any other way. The Bill does not authorise specific works. It simply enables the Minister to let land within an authorised area for an underground garage with a filling station and ordinary ancillary garage activities, subject to a number of important restrictions. There is no limitation on the duration of the powers, but the maximum single lease permitted by the Bill is 99 years, and at the expiration of any lease the Minister of Transport will consult the Minister of Works about future action.
The "authorised area" is 36 acres. This provides for the whole "shooting match", so to speak, and it provides for the accesses to the underground entrance tunnels, the emergency exits, and so on, and it also gives the developer some room to manœuvre in the siting and the design of the actual garage itself. The area actually developed would be smaller, probably between six or seven acres, 'with a capacity for about 1,000 cars. The site chosen was based on the need for an open space that was free of trees, for the best situation for access from the neighbouring roads, for minimum disturbance of amenity and to be as close as possible to the area it was designed to serve. The location of the accesses for vehicles and of the filling station is defined on the map which has been presented to Parliament and has been published as a Command Paper. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships have it. These locations have been agreed with the Minister of Works and after full consultation with the London County Council and the police.
The other thing the Bill does is to allow the Minister of Transport to make regulations to control public order in the area subject to development—that is, in the garage or the accesses to it. Public control on the park surface will continue to be by the Minister of Works under his Parks Regulations. The developer of

343
the garage will have to submit his proposals to the London County Council as the planning authority, apart from any consultation between Ministers and the Royal Fine Art Commission. The developer will also be bound by all the normal fire control and safety requirements. If I am not mistaken, I think your Lordships will probably be principally interested in the effectiveness of the safeguards for the amenities of the Park, and therefore I think perhaps I had better go into that aspect in a little more detail. At this point I ought to refer to the map and explain one thing, and, I hope, make it quite clear.
Those of your Lordships who have the map will see that the area is surrounded by a solid black line. Everything must go into that area. Inside is another quite large area, surrounded by a dotted line. That is an area which is so indicated because it is flat and open at present and it must still be flat and open when the job is completed. That is the purpose of that line. I think it is important that I should stress that point. Once the garage has been built, it will have little adverse effect on the amenities of the Park, and I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friends have together given most serious consideration to this point. Both my right honourable friends have announced formally in another place their intention to consult fully with the Royal Fine Art Commission on the amenity effect of any proposals.
I have made the point of the parade ground being restored completely, and Clause 2 (1) (a) provides for such reinstatement to the satisfaction of the Minister of Works where there has necessarily been disturbance during the work of construction. We have then to deal with the two ramped accesses, which are shown on the map, where vehicles go into the garage. There is also the question to consider of some emergency exits, ventilation shafts and smoke vents. Clause 2 (2) (b) defines these, and I think I should be more specific about them. The emergency exits may be required—and at the present stage I can only say "may", not "will"—on the West side of the area. If they are -required, there will not be more than two and they will be either flush with
344
the ground or will be low, inconspicuous objects which can be surrounded by a screen of bushes.
There will be up to three ventilation shafts of a height of about ten feet. One proposal is that these should be sited in the cover of the trees flanking the Broad Walk, on the East side of the area, and that they should be incorporated into park shelters and so disguised. As an alternative scheme, it may be possible to incorporate and conceal them in the rebuilt Grosvenor Gate Lodge, which is one of the original Decimus Burton lodges, which is to be preserved as an architectural feature, although it will not in fact be used any more as a lodge. The smoke vents are emergency contrivances, in the form of pavement lights which are capable of being broken by a fireman's axe, and are required under the London County Council fire regulations. It is intended that these should be sited on the paths which already cross the area. If this does not give the correct regular coverage it is proposed to provide additional paths containing these smoke vents. They will have no adverse effect at all on the amenities of the Park.
It will probably be necessary to fell some trees, although I hope and believe that it will not be necessary to fell more than fifteen. Clause 2 (1) (c), in fact, provides that my right honourable friend the Minister of Works shall have close and specific control of tree felling.
LORD MERR1VALE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a second? I am sorry, but I do so as he has left Clause 2 (1) (b). That paragraph says the Minister shall secure that:
"no works, when completed, protrude above the surface …".
Does that also mean any static or mobile equipment with regard to fuelling facilities, whether it be oil or petrol, and that kind of equipment?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, it does. There will be nothing of that kind. I am coming on to that point now. Under Clause 2 (2) (a) the positions of the entrances and exits, and also of the petrol filling station, are closely defined. The pumps will be at the bottom of a ramp, about 12 feet down, and will not be visible from the Park. The detailed design of the filling station will have to be approved by the London County Council as planning authority, but they have

345
accepted the idea of a petrol station, in principle, in the position where it is shown on the map.
Apart from these specific safeguards, I want to tell your Lordships once again that in the general exercise of the powers which are sought under this Bill the Minister of Transport has undertaken in another place—and, my Lords, I now repeat that undertaking—to work in the closest collaboration with the Minister of Works. The Minister of Works will be consulted in particular on the proposed terms of whatever lease is granted and over the appearance and siting of whatever works will come to the surface of the Park or project above it, both during the construction period and when the garage is finished.
If the Bill is approved, the Minister hopes to conclude the building agreement and lease with the Westminster City Council provided that satisfactory terms can be negotiated. There is every hope that this will be possible; but if it is not, the Minister will seek to negotiate with the L.C.C., subject of course to the Westminster City Council's agreement, or with a private developer. When the first lease has expired, the Bill leaves the Minister of Transport free to decide how and with whom to negotiate further leases, although, of course, before doing that he would consult with the Minister of Works. The present position is that the Westminster City Council are in negotiation with my right honourable friend on the basis of the granting of a lease of this kind, so that the Council could construct the garage and let it to a commercial operator. The discussions are going quite reasonably satisfactorily, so I am told, but it is worth noting that the terms will be negotiated with Treasury approval on the financial aspects and bearing in mind the need to ensure that, if this garage does, in fact, prove lucrative, the public purse will have a share in the profits. If all goes well in this way, my Lords, and the Bill is passed, work might well begin to some extent at the end of the year, before the present work of the Park Lane scheme finishes; and the garage should be in operation by 1963.
My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to explain to your Lordships that this 1,000-car garage on the site will not only be a very effective contribution in itself to the solution of the London
346
traffic problem but that it cart be done without unacceptable detriment to the amenity of the Park. It will also serve, I hope, to show that the Government's firm intention to encourage parking control, and off-street parking to go with it, is not merely a form of words. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel that this Bill should be read a second time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a, —(Lord Chesham.)
3.25 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for the pretty clear exposition he has given of the provisions of this Bill, and it will be useful as the basis of our discussion. I ought, in the first place, to tender an apology in advance, because I may not be here at the end of the debate since, like some others of your Lordships, I shall be going with my wife to the Royal Garden Party; and I am sure the House will understand.
My Lords, this is a Bill of importance. It is in the nature of an important precedent, in that a public open space is to be used for a garage and some of the public open space will be taken away entirely. Therefore we should attach importance to the Bill as establishing an important precedent which, if this goes through, may be followed elsewhere; and possibly liberties may be taken with public open spaces that ought not to be engaged in. I am sure that the Minister of Transport, and perhaps more particularly the Minister of Works., will be exceedingly careful how this work is carried out and what damage, if any, is done to the amenities of the Park. Some damage is bound to be done, but I have had enough experience of the Ministry of Works to know that they are not likely to suffer from undue tolerance of bad things happening to their open spaces. In my experience, the Ministry of Works have been a "sticky" lot: they almost frown at you if you look at an open space, let alone touch it or interfere with it. I am not complaining in principle that that should be so, because it is an exceedingly serious matter to tamper with our Public open space, of which we have much in London but of which some metropolitan boroughs are seriously

347
short. Moreover, it is badly distributed, as my noble friend Lord Latham reminds me, taking one metropolitan borough with another.
I myself have had experience of touching public open space. So have my noble friends Lord Latham and Lord Silkin, who were with me in that battle on the London County Council. We were faced with a terrific slum clearance problem in the East End of London, and unless we could make a real start somehow the period needed to clear the slums would have been enormously increased and the difficulties would have been much greater. So we decided, reluctantly—though we could not help it—to take 30 acres of Hackney Marsh (which is not as beautiful an open space as Hyde Park; it is very flat, all grass and all utilitarian) for the purpose of new housing, in flats, for the people of East London.
Having moved them into the flats, we were going forthwith to demolish the slum properties so that they should not be reoccupied; and that was done. But we had to undertake, I think, under the law as to open spaces, that we would compensate the public for the loss of that 30 acres of Hackney Marsh by providing alternative open space elsewhere, which we did. On the way we were taken to court by a friend of mine, a very good friend, a Mr. Villiers, of the Hackney Wick Boys' Club, on the ground that the open space we were acquiring was not sufficiently contiguous to Hackney Marsh; and he won. It was all done with love and kindness, but it was a nuisance, and he won. Having done that, he came back and said, "Now, Mr. Morrison, I will help you to find open space which is contiguous". He did: and the whole thing was squared up.
I do not know whether, if Her Majesty's Government get this Bill, there is, or ought to be, an obligation upon them to provide some compensating open space for such open space as is lost to Hyde Park, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to deal with that point, because I am quite clear that in the case of the London County Council compensating open space had to be provided, and I am not sure that Her Majesty's Government ought to get away with this kind of thing more easily than
348
London's municipality does. So I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point.
I was going to ask (but it now seems to be not quite so necessary) who would be the owners and the operators of the garage and of the petrol-selling facilities in it—and presumably there will be motor repairs at the garage. I assume that; otherwise, it will be disadvantageous to the undertaking. But the Parliamentary Secretary says they are seeking to let the lease to the City Council of Westminster, and then the City Council will be free to let it on lease to some private undertaking. To my mind, it all depends upon whether this show is going to pay and be profitable or whether it is not. I know the philosophy of the Conservative Party is: if there is something which does not pay or cannot pay, nationalise it or municipalise it; but if there is profit to be made, then let private enterprise have it. My socialist bias is the other way. I am a friend of the taxpayer and of the ratepayer, which the Conservatives are not, and I would say: if there is money to be made, let public authority make it; if it is speculative and it may be that money will be lost, then let private enterprise have it. They are great people for saying that they are willing to take the risks, so let them take them.
I should have thought that the body to do the work and to run it would be either the Westminster City Council or, if they were not willing, the London County Council: or, if it were preferred, the London County Council should run it in any case. I have no strong feeling as to which local authority it should be, but I should have thought that, if money is to be sunk in it, and if there is a reasonable prospect of its paying its way, it ought to be owned by public authority.
The Bill is, as the Parliamentary0 Secretary says, an enabling Bill. That was probably inevitable, and it is probably as detailed in its provisions as it could be in the circumstances of the case; but it is profoundly important that the instructions as to amenity, and so on, should be adequately and fully respected in the course of administration and management. Thirty-six acres is a pretty substantial area. It is going to take 1.000 cars. It is bigger than many of our public open spaces, not only in

349
London but in the provinces and elsewhere in the British Isles. What I am not too clear about, and what it would be useful to have information upon later on, is whether this substantial area (because to me it looks substantial on the map) is all going to be destroyed as public open space, or whether, as I should rather assume, there must be a destruction at the sloping exits up to the point that is necessary, but when you get further in you will go under the ground, and the garage itself will be underground. If that be so, what I should like to know is whether the surface cannot be reinstated over a considerable part of the 36 acres, so that there is the minimum loss to the use of the public as public open space.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I think I ought to interrupt him at this stage, because I should not like him or your Lordships as a whole to have this worry at all. The noble Lord really has misunderstood what I said. There is no question of 36 acres of Hyde Park being taken: no question whatever. It is merely that on the plan there is a 36-acre area within the confines of which these works must be carried out. While the works are being carried out there will naturally be a temporary detriment to public use, but when they are finished there will be no question of 36 acres being taken from the park. There will be only a very small area. All that will be there to be seen, as I tried to describe, is a very slight indentation at the two entrance points; three ventilation shafts disguised as something; and maybe a couple of emergency exits with bushes around. Practically the whole of the rest of the area will be just as available to the public, in very much the same form. as it is now.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I was hoping that that would be so. I thought it was so during the course of his speech, but I was not finally clear about it.
LORD CHESHAM: It was my fault.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Not at all. At any rate, there is no need for the Parliamentary Secretary to get to the verge of crossness about it, because it was a perfectly innocent and legitimate
350
inquiry I made, and I am much obliged to have his assurance. I thought that would be the answer, from what he said, but I was not absolutely sure, and I thought it desirable, in a matter of this importance, that one should be absolutely sure about it.
There is provision in the Bill that they may grant a lease to some other body; and I am glad to say that there are fuelling and other facilities and services, which I hope will include repairs. It is a good thing that Clause 2 is there, which gives directions as to protection of amenities to the satisfaction of the Minister of Works, and says that there shall be no protruding above the surface when there is reinstatement. I am glad that every effort will be made to protect trees; and there are other useful provisions for the purpose of safeguarding the public interest. As to the end of subsection (4) of Clause 2, I am a little doubtful whether the fine of "not exceeding £5" is quite adequate, because people might make rather bad nuisances of themselves. I should have thought that a fine of £5 is very nominal, and that there is something to be said for its being increased.
My Lords, this Bill will provide a substantial place for the garaging of cars, and to that extent it is useful. My worry about London and London traffic is whether we can let the motor traffic of London go on growing within the county to the extent to which it has been growing in recent years. I used to drive up from Eltham to Parliament in a fairly steady, regular half-an-hour, but now it quite often takes three-quarters of an hour or an hour. The danger on the highways to pedestrians has increased and is increasing, and what I am beginning to wonder is whether society can permit everybody's motor car to cone into the County of London carrying, perhaps, nobody but the driver, or the driver and one passenger. If motor traffic is going to increase at the rate it is, I am wondering whether the Ministry of Transport have not to think about saying (I know it will want a lot of political courage to do it, because there will be an awful row about it), "We are sorry, but unless you can show very good cause you cannot come into the Central London area". In that case, there ought to be garaging or parking facilities at suburban railway stations,

351
and so on, so that people can leave their cars there and finish their journey by public transport.
What is the alternative? There is a continuous demand for more highway improvements and new highways, and in the big cities it is a very costly business for the local authorities to provide these highway improvements. It is true that the Ministry give substantial grants which, on a Class I improvement, will usually he 75 per cent. That is a material grant, and it helps them out, but it means that the Treasury has to bear a very great cost. The worrying vision I have about London is that if we go on widening and widening and making new roads, there will arise the issue which was put to me by a former valuer of the London County Council, Mr. Frank Hunt. He was an exceedingly able man who understood London values very well. I was rather praising the late Mr. Lloyd George's road 'improvement schemes, about which he was enthusiastic. He said, "There is a lot to be said for it, but be careful. If you do not look out, this will be a city of roads, and there will be no rateable value left."
That is an exaggeration, but there is some point in it, and I do not know that we can go on for ever making the roads fit the increasing traffic, not only of motor cars but of motor cycles that seem to be multiplying out of all reason, and can be a great nuisance both in traffic and in regard to noise. They really are terrors up the Old Kent Road. I have shouted at them sometimes. Sometimes I have been heard, and stopped them, but directly afterwards they go off up the road as before. Some riders get a "kick" out of making the maximum noise they can. Of course, this is the liberty of the individual on the Queen's highway, and all that, but I am not sure that we can go on letting motor transport grow, with the result that we have to spend enormous sums on improving existing highways or building new ones, and possibly depreciating capital values.
There is another thing I do not understand about the policy of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport. He seems to love not only to land on the road as many commercial transport vehicles as he can, but to let them have as many trailers as possible.
352
One sees them with one trailer, or sometimes two, monopolising the highway, often carrying merchandise that ought to go by rail. It would be a good thing for the railways if it did, though that cannot always be done. That, however, is another cause of claims for increased expenditure on highways.
My Lords, I thought I would chance my arm on this rather risky proposition. I have mentioned it because I felt sure the public, the Press, the Government and Parliament must begin to think about it, for we cannot for ever go on letting motor traffic increase relentlessly in the built-up urban areas of our country, without control. Taking this Bill as a whole, and subject to the points for which I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary for further consideration, I believe the House would do well to give it a Second Reading.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down would he not agree that if private cars were prevented from coming into Central London, public transport services could not carry the traffic?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, public transport can carry a lot more. For example, the buses are in financial difficulties because they are not carrying nearly enough passengers. On the Southern electric railway they are at times unable to do so at the peak hour. It may be that some additional tube facilities (which I know are costly), such as the Victoria-Walthamstow line, may have to be considered. That is a point which has to be kept in mind.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is it not a fact that motor car manufacturers are able to manufacture noiseless, or comparatively noiseless, motor cycles just as well as they can manufacture almost noiseless motor cars, but cannot sell them because these youngsters want noise and will not buy any machine that does not give them noise?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am not the Minister in charge of the Bill but I believe there is a lot in what my noble friend says. On the whole, we are successful in making motor cars noiseless, and manufacturers can make motor cycles almost noiseless. But my grumble is with the Minister of

353
Transport whose regulations are not stiff enough, or, if they are stiff enough, are not enforced as much as they should be by the Ministry and the police. There is a lot in what my noble friend says about youngsters getting a "kick" out of making maximum noise. Sometimes they are frightening to quiet, decent, well-behaved motorists when they race along causing this row. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a responsibility to see that all this noise is stopped. We are much obliged to him, in advance, for whatever action may be needed.
3.44 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if I might be forgiven for butting in, I should like to say a few words about the Bill. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time by repeating what other noble Lords have said, but I should like to repeat some of the things I myself have said in the past—which is quite different. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister was right in drawing our attention to the fact that this garage under Hyde Park cannot be taken in isolation. It must be regarded as only one of the solutions to the London traffic problem and as something to be taken in conjunction with the other schemes he has enumerated—meters, one-way traffic schemes and off-street parking in newly constructed garages. All are part and parcel of the same problem.
I am glad to see that the Hyde Park scheme, at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, is forging ahead, and I believe that it will provide real relief when it is completed. I was glad to hear my noble friend tell us of more meters being put up. I should like to congratulate him and his right honourable friend on the success of their one-way traffic scheme which is just getting into its stride in Central and Northern London. Having an office in Tottenham Court Road I have first-hand experience of this scheme. Tottenham Court Road is now like the M.1. Traffic goes up it like a bomb, and it is quite impossible for anybody to cross Tottenham Court Road, except at traffic lights; and that is absolutely right, for that is the correct place for pedestrians to cross. We put a clause in a Bill to this effect a little while ago, but so far the necks has not reached the pedestrian. Going northwards the one-way system is
354
fine. Going south is more difficult because of the wideness of the diversions. I have not yet found a way of coming south from my office in Tottenham Court Road to your Lordships' House without going through the outskirts of Wolverhampton, but no doubt in due course I shall learn how to do so.
I welcome the noble Lord's comments on off-street parking in garages other than this Hyde Park scheme. I hope that one day we shall see it enacted that no large building may go up anywhere in Central London which is unable to consume its own transport. I understand that we are about to put up a large skyscraper on the old Portman House site, at the end of Montagu Square. It is essential that that building should be able to consume its own transport. One has only to move a few yards north to see what happens where that lesson has not been learned, for there one can see what happened when no underground parking facilities were provided for Wyndham House. As a result, the whole of that area is now cluttered with large cars.
At the risk of shocking your Lordships, I would say that I should like to see this Bill carried further; I should like to see underground parking facilities under Horse Guards Parade, under large areas of Green Park (where that could be done without affecting amenities) and under Wellington Barracks, Birdcage Walk. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that we must be careful on the subject of amenity. We are rightly jealous of our Royal Parks, and rightly resent any intrusion on our amenities there. But my noble friend Lord Chesham has now set at least my mind at rest that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to this. I should like him to tell us, if he possibly can, what is to happen to the trees. When we launched the Hyde Park scheme we lost nearly 80 trees. That was sad but inevitable. How many shall we lose eventually under this scheme? I understand only about 15 or 20; but I should like to have my noble friend's views on that an due course, because it is important that we should watch this carefully.
There, is one other point that I would ask my noble friend and that is in regard to the timing of this scheme. If I understood him aright, it is going to take us

355
nearly two years—that is, if we have a dry summer. If we have an English summer it may take longer. Am I right in thinking (or am I being unkind) that we in this country take an awfully long time with our public engineering works? In the past I have seen, as your Lordships no doubt have done, such things as the construction of that great overhead road system in Brussels and other great public works, in particular in Montreal and New York. They seem to go very much faster than ours. I know, of course, that places like Hyde Park Corner present real difficulties of their own. If you dig too far in the north you drown in that wonderfully named "King's College Scholars Pond". If you dig too far in the middle, you disconnect half the telephones in Europe; and if you dig too far to the south you will find yourself clinging to the 8.33 "All stations to Uxbridge".
I wonder if it is not possible to accelerate the progress of this tolerably simple task of digging a hole in the middle of Hyde Park. I listened with interest to what my noble friend said about the timetable. I should have hoped that, without constitutional propriety being impaired, negotiations could have been advanced so that when this Bill received the Royal Assent we should pretty soon be able to hear the clang of bulldozers from Speakers' Corner. I very much hope the noble Lord will do all he can to accelerate negotiations, so that we do not have a long delay after the Bill is passed.
Another fear haunts me. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I know what will happen. The moment the last stone is put back in its place in the Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner scheme, the very day it is put back, along will come Messrs Holland & Hannen & Cubitts, Taylor Woodrow, and "old Uncle McAlpine and all" and tear the whole thing up again—because that is part of the British way of life. I hope that the noble Lord will do all he can to accelerate both the negotiations and the construction of this garage while Hyde Park continues to look as it does now, like a dress rehearsal for the Day of Judgment.
I think this is a bold scheme and is a major step forward towards solving a very difficult problem. But I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will not stop there. I do not believe that this
356
garage will encourage the wrong people to come in. If your Lordships look at the map, you will see whom it will serve. This map, incidentally, was published in 1961 and depicts the Marble Arch Pavilion, which was demolished nearly five years ago. The Ministry of Transport, like the mills of God, grind slowly; and judging from the print on this map, they "grind exceedingly small". It will be the big hotels all around Park Lane and Marble Arch, and the flats and offices, which will use the garage for the cars of their tenants and workers. At the moment, these cars are cluttering up all the streets around the area.
I should like the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to introduce some scheme as that in New York, where such hotels, flats and offices have special arrangements made for them in such garages, including direct telephonic communication—all the facilities laid on so that they can use them. It is their cars that we want off the side streets around Park Lane. I think that if some arrangement could be made, it would be all to the good, and we should be serving the people we want particularly to clear off the streets in that area. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward an imaginative Bill. I hope that they will not stop here, but will go forward and think of Horse Guards Parade. Green Park, and elsewhere. I wish this Bill a swift progress.

REVIEW OF PUBLIC SERVICE SECURITY
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it might for the convenience of the House if I repeated now a statement on a somewhat different subject which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement.
"In accordance with what I told the House on Thursday, May 4, I have been reviewing what further measures should be taken to protect the security of the realm. I made it clear then that I did not rule out the possibility of a further inquiry into

357
our security system. I have now had an opportunity of considering the whole matter in some detail and I have discussed it with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues. I have also taken account of the public anxiety which has been aroused by the case of George Blake and by other recent convictions under the Official Secrets Acts.
"The Government have decided that a fresh review should be made of the security procedures and practices currently in force throughout the public service. I propose that this review should be undertaken by a body of independent persons of standing, who will between them be able to bring to bear on this problem a judgment based on wide and varied experience. The names of the Chairman and other members will be annouced as soon as possible. The terms of reference will be as follows:
'In the light of recent convictions for offences under the Official Secrets Acts, to review the security procedures and practices currently followed in the public service; and to consider what, if any, changes are required.'
"The House will recall that the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Charles Romer, who are already inquiring into the circumstances connected with the earlier case of espionage at an Admiralty establishment at Portland, were required by their terms of reference to
'draw attention to any failure in existing security procedures which may come to their notice in the course of their inquiry'.
The findings of the Romer Committee will, of course, be made available to the new Committee, who will be able to take them into account in the wider inquiry which they are to undertake.
"The new Committee will report to me as Prime Minister. Until I receive the Report I cannot say whether it will be possible to publish it in whole or in part. While the responsibility for any action lies with the Government it is a long-standing tradition of this House that in these matters there should be consultation between the Government and the Opposition. I shall, therefore, consult the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when I have the Report."
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving us the Prime Minister's statement. As the House may be aware, I was privy to the consultations. I can say this at once: that we welcome the statement of the Prime Minister. We think it is right to recognise the public disquiet which has arisen, and to do everything that can possibly be done to restore the confidence of the public in what must always be necessary security measures for the protection of the State. I think I may say at once that the terms of reference, drawn on such broad lines, are of a nature which will enable all things relevant to be examined.
LORD REA: My Lords, I would endorse what the noble Viscount has just said and say that we are very glad he was on the committee which came to this decision. It seems to me that there has been a long lapse of time since the matter was gone over on such a wide basis, and therefore we very much welcome' it. I notice that the. Prime Minister says there is a longstanding tradition of that House that in these matters there should be consultation between the Government and the Opposition. We merely ask that he does not interpret those words too narrowly.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the last thing I should seek to do is interpret the word "Opposition" in any narrow sense. I thank both noble Lords for the welcome they have given this statement.

HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL
3.57 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to say at the outset that I very much welcome the concept of this scheme, but I wonder whether I could, for one moment, touch upon the question of charges. I have an impression from remarks in another place that these charges are likely to be pretty high. In fact, I believe I have heard a figure as high as fifteen shillings a day. I am just wondering, with that sort of figure—if that is the intention, it would seem to

359
indicate a fairly lucrative revenue—whether the right place it should go is to the local authority (as I believe it may) and also to the Treasury. The reason I say that is because it seems to me that this is a further levy on the motorist, which I think at the present time is not entirely desirable.
I was wondering whether a more economical method of working could conceivably be devised, whereby the charges were related to the normal running of the garage, and what profit there might be could be turned over to develop other off-street accommodation, in rather the same way, I believe, as the meter parking scheme is worked. It seems to me that, in view of the many burdens the motorist has to bear to-day. to introduce one more levy and charge against him, for what I agree is an entirely desirable scheme, is not entirely fair, if he cannot have additional accommodation in the centre of London, which a profit arising from a charge as high as that would probably help to provide. I do not wish to pursue other aspects, because I find that the whole scheme, in concept, is exactly what is required; but I would just ask the Minister whether those particular aspects could be given consideration.
4.0 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, this Bill marks a further and important step toward the solution, or, at any rate, the alleviation, of London's increasing traffic problem, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has indicated, largely due to the fact that the commuter is using his private car on the principle of, "one car, one man to work." If the noble Lord had recently been at the Ministry of Transport, I am sure that he would have given consideration, as has been done, to the possibility of the compulsory restriction of cars coming into the middle of London. But in point of fact, from a practical point of view, it represents an almost insuperable difficulty—or, at any rate, that has been our view down to the present time.
The problem of exempted people—doctors, for instance; the question of those living in the middle of London, of offices and of bogus addresses and so on—all these would arise. And I do not believe that it will ever be possible to
360
ban the entry of private cars into the middle of London. At the same time, it is possible, and I am sure desirable, to make it extremely expensive for the individual commuter to use his private car for coming into London. It is not only the immense cost of providing parking accommodation during his hours of work in London; it is also the congestion in the rush hour coming into London in the morning and the congestion going out again in the evening. At the present time, of the vast number of commuters coming in and going out, only some 7 per cent. travel by motor car. With a doubling of that proportion—say up to 15 per cent.—what is already an appalling problem would result in an almost complete standstill of London traffic. And I am glad that the present Minister of Transport has said, openly and boldly, on a number of occasions that he intends to make it extremely costly and inconvenient for people who choose to abstain from using public transport and come, one man, one car, into central London.
In the Act of 1956, which introduced parking meters, it was provided that any profits which arose from parking meters, after payment of expenses, should all be used for the provision of off-the-street parking, and I am glad indeed to know that parking meters are becoming increasingly accepted by the motoring public, as well as having been found extremely satisfactory and convenient by the public. Of course they do not in themselves provide additional space, but it means that eight people can park for one hour a day instead of one person parking for eight hours and obviously that is in the general interest.
It is a provision of the Act of 1956 that payment could be made to private individuals to provide off-the-street parking, but at the time we were drafting, the Bill we thought it very unlikely that public opinion would ever agree to that. Therefore I am glad to hear that during the Committee stage in the House of Commons, the Minister was able to announce that there was every reason to hope, and to expect, that the Westminster City Council would be prepared to undertake the provision of this garage in Hyde Park.
There are only two ways of providing the necessary accommodation. One is in multi-storey garages going up into the

361
air. That, I think, is very unsightly. The other is in an underground garage. Although there are great difficulties, I am sure that that is much the more promising direction in which we should be going. As long ago as 1953–54, when my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton was Minister of Transport, we employed several firms of civil engineers to work out schemes for underground garages in Grosvenor Square, Cavendish Square and Finsbury Square. Only the last of these has, in fact, been adopted and is now being put into operation by private enterprise under legislation promoted by the Finsbury Borough Council. At that time we were not able to overcome the great problem of ensuring that the amenities on the surface were not unduly interfered with by an underground garage; but at that time it was also thought, from the financial point of view, that not more than about 3s. a day could be charged. Experience has shown that much more will be paid by the motorist in order to obtain off-the-street parking accommodation. I understand that the Lex Garage, at Selfridge's, is charging 10s. a day.
In addition, as I have already mentioned, there is considerable and increasing profit being made from parking meters. That all has to be applied as a subsidy for the provision of long-term off-the-street parking. I am sure that that is fair and reasonable, because it means that the short-term parker is paying, but is getting very much improved opportunity of parking; and that is being done for his benefit by driving the long-term parker off the road. We must realise that although, in many cases, the long-term parker is a person with whom, as I have suggested, we should have no sympathy—for example, the man who drives up from the country and tries parking his car just outside his office—there are other people, like those living in London or doing certain kinds of work, who may find it necessary to park their cars for a long time. An ordinary doctor is a good example of a short-term parker, as he goes round visiting his various patients; but a doctor attending a hospital may be there for the whole day, and he may be a perfectly legitimate example of the long-term parker. Therefore, I am glad that assistance is being given at the expense of the short-term parker, who
362
enjoys the advantage of the parking meters, and that the profits from these, which last year amounted in the City of Westminster to £50,000, will go to the provision of off-the-street parking.
When I was Minister of Works, I agreed to this scheme in principle. We looked at it very carefully from the point of view of amenities, and I am glad to say that, as the result of the discussions that have taken place between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Works, your Lordships can feel reasonably assured (and I have examined the map carefully) that there is not going to be any undue interference with the amenities of the Park. The provision in Clause 2, that the Minister of Works must be satisfied that the works have been carried to a successful conclusion and are not interfering with amenities, will be, I think, sufficient guarantee of that. Although normally I should regard the description of a Department as being "sticky" as rather an offensive one, I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, describing the Ministry of Works as being "sticky", when it is a question of any invasion of the rights of the public and their enjoyment of the Royal Parks.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned amenities, and I rather thought that in 1954 it was considered impossible to preserve the amenities. So far as Finsbury Square is concerned, the amenities are going to be enhanced, because all the trees worth preserving will be preserved by the special means of putting earth round the roots. I am sure that there is no reason why all the trees worth preserving in Hyde Park should not be preserved in the same way.
LORD MOLSON: I was really referring to Grosvenor Square and Cavendish Square. The Ministry of Works were then "sticky" about this aspect. At that time I was in the Ministry of Transport, on the other side of the argument, and the Ministry of Works did not consider that it was possible to preserve the necessary amenities of Grosvenor Square and Cavendish Square. I think that further progress has been made since, and I am satisfied that the amenities in this respect are being preserved in Hyde Park.

363
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance upon one extremely important matter. When my right honourable friend Mr. Birch was Minister of Works he agreed to the longterm parking of cars in Hyde Park. That was at the request of the Minister of Transport at the time, and I am not for one moment criticising the decision that he took. That was, to some extent, extended at Christmas time when the Pink Zone was introduced. But I think we should all be jealous of the invasion of the Parks by parked motor cars. They are Royal Parks, and they should not become car parks. I think that this Bill provides an opportunity for obtaining some assurance that when accommodation is provided underground the Minister of Works will no longer continue to allow cars to be parked on the surface. I hope that the Minister of Works of that day will be adamant. But I see no reason why he should not obtain the concurrence, support and approval of the Minister of Transport, who has similar interests in this matter.
The present Minister has been quite outspoken in saying what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was asking for to-day: that he desires to discourage the "one man, one car" type of "commuters" from coming into London. Therefore, it should be no part of the Government's policy, or of his, to provide an unlimited amount of space available for long-term parkers of that kind. The Minister will find that if he wants the underground car park to be used at a charge of 10s, a day he will have to be careful that there is no free parking on the surface nearby: otherwise, he will find what I saw in Storey's Gate as I came here to-day—namely, a number of cars parked to the general obstruction of traffic, while at the same time there were empty spaces in the car park which has been put on the old site of Westminster Hospital.
There is power under Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, enabling charges to be made for parking in the Royal Parks; but neither my noble friend Lord Hailes, when he was Minister of Works, nor I, thought it suitable to use that power. There is something rather distasteful in the idea of using for the production of revenue parking in the Royal Parks. I am sure that the
364
right thing to do is to bury it as soon as this new underground car park has been provided. I hope that your Lordships will welcome this Bill. I wish it well, and I congratulate my noble friend and his right honourable friend on introducing it. But I hope that my noble friend will give me some assurance on what I think is the important matter of the amenities of the parks which I have taken this opportunity of raising.
4.15 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long, and I rise only to welcome the fact that some of the major considerations have been raised by my noble friend Lord Molson, who has just resumed his seat, and by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. Let me tell my noble friend in charge of the Bill that I am not rising to oppose it. I know that the bulk of opinion in another place and here favours this Bill, and I certainly will not delay its Second Reading. But I cannot pretend that I share the optimism regarding its results which has been expressed in certain quarters. I agree with a great deal that was said by my noble friend Lord Molson. After all, this Bill is, according to the Minister's own figures, to provide parking places for 1,000 cars. What will that do to relieve congestion? We are at present, by what I regard as absurdly bad planning, displacing living accommodation in Central London by office building, with the quite certain result of increasing, and constantly increasing, the numbers of those who will travel into and out of London, morning and evening. More than 1.000 cars, in addition to those now coming in, will in a very short time come in as a direct result of some of our failures in town planning.
The real question we have to ask is: if these additional parking spaces under the Park for 1,000 cars are to be provided, for what cars are they going to be provided? Is it for those which are at present parking elsewhere in London (if they were to be removed from the streets and this garage used there would be something to be said for it), or for additional cars which will come into London in the mornings and go out in the evenings? If the latter, then the contribution that will be made by this new garage under the Park will be of short utility.

365
I believe that if we are to make a serious contribution to the problem of traffic in London we must concern ourselves with three things, and nothing less than those three things will solve the problem. The first is planning. We really must stop diminishing the accommodation available for those living in the centre of London in order to create office buildings certain to attract people travelling into and out of London daily. The second requirement is absolutely to prohibit motorists from obstructing the highway by parking in the streets, except in those places which are considered suitable and where parking meters have been provided. Generally, in Central London, the motorist must not think he is entitled to park his motor car in the street. The third requirement is that the garages that are then available for parking shall charge an economic price. I am certain that the economic price in the centre of London is destined to be fairly high; and unless it is, the number of additional cars that will come in eventually seeking parking accommodation, which, in spite of these increases, will not be sufficient, will be very great. Those three things must be done if any serious contribution is to be made to the problem of traffic in Central London.
A good deal has been said both by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and by my noble friend Lord Molson about the private motorist who brings in a car which perhaps contains only one passenger. But when it is suggested that all those who come in by motor car might use public transport, I wonder if those who make that statement have any recent experience of using public transport in London at the rush hour. I thought seriously of introducing a Motion in Parliament prohibiting Cabinet Ministers, for a period, from driving in private cars at all in order to compel them to learn how the ordinary public live. I do not believe that most Members of the Government have any conception of what it is like to try to enter a tube station in Central London during the rush hour, or to stand in a bus queue. There are no doubt exceptions. In fact, I am much too friendly to the members of Her Majesty's Government to put down any such Motion, or even to ask them embarrassing questions.
366
But the point, I am sure, is a sound one. It is quite vain to think that simply giving an additional 1,000 places under Hyde Park is going to be any use whatever in a year or two, unless some of these other steps are also taken. I therefore repeat that the three steps which must be taken, the absence of any one of which will ruin the scheme, is that we must stop this uncontrolled office building—or almost uncontrolled—in Central London, destined enormously to increase the number who have to travel into and out of London daily; we must stop parking on the highways, and we must make an economic charge for such parking places as are available, in order that only those who really need that parking space shall use it.
4.23 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the first thing I should like to do at this stage is to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill and to welcome in a very sincere way the support that they have been good enough to give to it. I know that, here and there, it has been to a certain extent qualified by certain queries and certain ideas, with which I will endeavour to deal in a moment. But it is certainly gratifying and cheering that your Lordships have been good enough to support us to the extent you have. I value greatly, of course, the support of my noble friend Lord Molson, who has almost had experience of batting and bowling on this subject at the same time, and of my noble friend Lord Conesford, because I know so well, if I may put it that way, how sensitive he is to any threat to the amenity of the parks. I feel that if we have his overall, if not unqualified, approval, we must have got a fair proportion of the proposal reasonably right.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said that this proposal formed an important precedent. I would agree with that, and that is precisely why my noble friends and the Government have gone so far to handle the matter so very carefully. It is our belief that that is the way to handle matters of this sort, and, therefore, I do not think there is any harm in establishing the manner as a precedent as well. I think that what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, on the subject of the open space is proof enough of what I have

367
said. The noble Lord is not here, but may I say that I am sorry he thought I was cross with him, because I was not cross at all. I merely wanted to make the point clear at the time, because I thought it would make it easier for him. I am sorry if he thought I was cross, and I trust he will accept my apology. I ought, I suppose, to have been cross with myself that I had not made the matter clear. But I think the matter is now clear, particularly on the subject of trees—that there will be very little damage or detriment in that respect. I am glad to find my noble friend Lord Mancroft has such an acute interest in trees. I always thought that he walked his dog in Montagu Square, but it may be that his interest in trees in the Park is of a different nature. I think that the number I quoted in my speech of about fifteen is what we can expect to lose.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, indulged in some very interesting ideas. I think your Lordships will understand if I do not follow him, because he went into realms which seemed to me a little wider of the Bill than I could afford to go at this time. Therefore, I should like to pass on and touch a little on the question of the traffic coming into London. My noble friends, Lord Mancroft and Lord Conesford, have both mentioned this point. Of course, it is a fact that an increasing number of new office buildings are being provided with their own garages in the basement. The L.C.C. have definite regulations about that, and it is coming about. So also are the other measures, in a slow way, which my noble friend Lord Conesford asked us to consider. The parking control and the economic factors, if you like to call them that, which he brought in, are all beginning to have their effect, and as the control of parking and the off-street parking continue, then so the picture will begin to build up in the manner that he wishes.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I do not suppose my noble friend means to suggest that the amount of parking accommodation that has to be provided for a new office building provides for more than a tiny fraction of the additional cars that will be involved in the people coming in and out of London.
LORD CHESHAM: I know that is true and, therefore, I did not say that this problem is shortly to be solved. I said that it was moving in the direction my noble friend is recommending. I thought my noble friend cast a little too much doubt upon the efficacy of this particular car park. He would have been right if one took the view that this was a "once-and-for-all" effort by the Government, and that we thought this was going to solve the problem, or something like it. But it is only part of the solution.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft recommended that car parks should be built in other places, and I can certainly tell him that long-term possibilities for further projects on lines like these are at the present time being considered by my right honourable friends, the Ministers of Transport and of Works. At the moment, I think it is too early for me to be able to point with any confidence at any specific project, but they are definitely considering these matters, and of course your Lordships would have the chance of considering them, because any such similar schemes would require further legislation. Therefore, it is not right to consider this one car park as as isolated effort, but only as part of a pattern.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft criticised the timing that my right honourable friend in another place forecast. It may well be that he is right to do so. My right honourable friend mentioned a figure of 1½ to 2 years, which can be deduced from what I have said, in any case. He is not building this garage himself. By the time a lease is drawn up, tenders obtained and accepted, and work carried out, that does not seem a very unreasonable time before the garage comes into operation. I think we can definitely envisage that Westminster City Council, if they do take the head lease, or the Ministry if they do not, will certainly invite competitive tenders for the project, and the tenderers themselves will be asked to state the period of construction they envisage. If quicker modern methods are available, the contractors can take advantage of them, and the job can be speeded up.
The noble Lord, Lord Terrington—who shares with me the distinction of being the only noble Lord who has taken part whose name does not begin with

369
"M"; we are the only ones connected with this project in that position—mentioned the charges, which he thought might be high. Of course, my right honourable friend would not control the charges, but the Westminster City Council, in the sub-lease they granted to the operator, could, if they thought it desirable, impose, a control on the charges. I think it will be necessary to allow these charges to follow a commercial pattern, so to speak, and to line up with charges in the locality. I rather think, like my noble friend Lord Conesford, that it must go that way. I should like to devote some thought to what the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, suggested should be done with the money, and I can tell him I shall think about it in general from now on.
I think I should just say a word on the point raised by my noble friend, Lord Molson, on parking on the carriageway in Hyde Park when the garage is completed. Of course, my noble friend is completely right, and I remember my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, saying on more than one occasion that it is perfectly true that as long as people can park for an indefinite period free on the carriageway they will do so and will not use a car park of any sort or kind. When this garage is completed we certainly and obviously would not want surface parking to undercut it. That would be ridiculous. When the garage is completed we shall at that stage either prohibit parking or charge within a certain range of it. The choice between the two will rather be dictated by the need for parking facilities that is obtaining at the time. It is that need, the pressure on parking facilities, which will dictate that decision and which prevents me from producing the positive assurance for which my noble friend asks.
I do not think I could give that, but I should like to tell him that on the longer-term aspect the Government's attitude to parking in the Royal Parks remains basically the same, either in Hyde Park or in the other Royal Parks where large-scale parking is said to be a detriment to amenity. In the long run, the policy is that this parking will be stopped unless there is some arrangement that can be made for genuine visitors to the park. In the long run it will be stopped; but how soon we can get to the stage that we can stop
370
it it is not easy to see. In Hyde Park, for instance, it may be some time yet. What we are proposing to do under this Bill brings that day certainly, I should have thought, a bit nearer. We shall no doubt have other discussions in the future. Meanwhile we can help to do this desirable thing with this Bill, and I should like once more to thank your Lordships for your help and your support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION BILL
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE ON SPECIAL PURPOSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
RATING AND VALUATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships with any wide-ranged narrative describing the reasons which have brought the Government to lay this Bill before you. Enough has been said already on South Africa's decision to withdraw from the Commonwealth and of the way this came about, and of the increasing strains which the South African Government's pursuit of the policy of apartheid had placed upon the Commonwealth partnership. Indeed, this House debated the matter on March 23. The decision reached at the recent Prime Ministers' Conference already belongs to history. It marks a permanent milestone in Commonwealth evolution, a melancholy landmark, but essentially a milestone and not a gravestone. Inevitable though that decision

371
now appears, its effect has proved both salutary and sad.
But we are to-day concerned not with post-mortems but with consequences. This Bill, the South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill, is a short Bill and, if I may say so with respect, a dry one. It is a Bill of limited application both as to content and to time. It is a standstill measure designed solely to give the Government elbow-room within which to work out a new and permanent bilateral relationship with the Republic of South Africa. In less than three weeks from now, on May 31, South Africa will become not only a Republic but a foreign country, severed from the Commonwealth association. It will be readily apparent to your Lordships that a radical change of this kind, affecting a major Commonwealth partner with whom over the past half century we, above all, but also other Commonwealth Governments, have built up intricate relationships, must inevitably give rise to far-reaching practical problems.
It will, I think, obviously not be possible for the Government to solve those problems between now and May 31. There are many matters to be considered—some legal, some administrative, some personal. To all of them we must now apply the maxim that a country which moves outside the Commonwealth can no longer expect to benefit from the same privileges as one which remains within the association. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place, we must be careful not to destroy the value of Commonwealth membership by giving to those who are not members all the privileges of those who are.
It is therefore the clear duty of the Government to review our relations with South Africa, while at the same time taking care that we do not needlessly destroy such existing bilateral relations as we might normally expect to enjoy with a friendly foreign Power. As I have said, some aspects of this relationship are enshrined in law, some are contractual, yet others are based on convention and usage. It would take time to review them all. All of them, not least our future bilateral links in the trade and defence field, will no doubt involve us in detailed negotiations with the Government of South Africa.
372
I hope I have said enough to show that the Bill which is now before the House is but the visible part of a far larger iceberg which the Government has now to circumnavigate. In fact the Bill itself can deal only with a limited sector of the problem which South Africa's withdrawal from the Commonwealth throws up. It is designed to freeze for a maximum period of one year—I use the word "maximum" advisedly—those Acts of Parliament which relate to South Africa, in the sense that they refer to that country as part of Her Majesty's Dominions or as a Commonwealth country. If we fail to take action now to preserve these Acts of Parliament in respect of South Africa, until we have decided upon their amendment, we should, as from May 31, be creating a legislative vacuum. Admittedly, the number of Acts which will be affected by the Bill is relatively small. But some of them, such as the Fugitive Offenders Act, the Merchant Shipping Acts, the Maintenance Orders Acts, the Visiting Forces Acts and the complex of medical, dentists and solicitors Acts will suggest to your Lordships that both practical and human difficulties would arise if we merely allowed such measures to lapse in respect of South Africa before we had thought out in detail what, if any, provisions should be worked out to replace them.
For this same reason, Clause 1 (3) of the Bill explains its provision to cover the dependent territories. Again this is designed to prevent a vacuum as from May 31 in relation to Acts of Parliament at Westminster which, as is the case with the great majority of Acts on which this Bill bites, have the force of law in the dependent territories. As my right honourable friend in another place also said, great confusion and uncertainty would be created if United Kingdom laws were allowed to have effect in some of our dependent territories and not in others. The Bill also covers local laws enacted by Colonial Legislatures, referring to South Africa by reference to that country as a part of Her Majesty's Dominions or a member of the Commonwealth. But the Act will not prevent Colonial Legislatures from amending such local legislation at any time they see fit so to do. There is, however, a proviso in Clause 1 (3) excluding from this general operation laws which the

373
Federal Legislature of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia are themselves competent to amend. The constitutional reasons for this will readily be apparent to your Lordships.
As I have already said, the problem with which the Bill itself deals forms the lesser part of the iceberg. There are other United Kingdom Acts of Parliament on which the Bill will not bite, but which the Government will none the less have to review before our longterm relationship with South Africa is settled. Chief among such measures is the British Nationality Act, 1948, Section 1 (3). This subsection lists South Africa, but without reference to Her Majesty's Dominions or membership of the Commonwealth, among the countries whose citizens are British subjeots. Thus, until that Act is amended South African citizens will remain British subjects. Here, we have a fundamental human problem to which the Government have already begun to give anxious and detailed thought. Clearly, a fundamental change will have to take place once South Africa leaves the Commonwealth comity. Equally clearly, the nature of any new arrangement will require the closest consideration. This alone is a major reason why the Government should seek a sufficient period within which to work out their policy.
As I have already suggested, there are other equally complicated matters which fall neither wholly within this Bill nor in all respects within other existing legislation—I refer to our bilateral trade and defence links of agreement with South Africa, and to the future of the High Commission Territories. So far as trade goes, our Trade Agreement is a bilateral arrangement between South Africa and ourselves which continues in force until it is terminated by either side. Thus, the Agreement itself will not be affected by the changed status of South Africa. As your Lordships will be aware, it is one of the Agreements entered into by Commonwealth Governments as a result of the Ottawa Conference of 1932, and involves giving certain preferences to South African goods and receiving in return certain preferences on our goods.
Our obligation under this and under other Ottawa Agreements is implemented in our law under the legislation relating to import duties. The current legislation
374
—that is, the Import Duties Act, 1958—will be affected by the present Bill, since it refers to South Africa in a context which implies South African membership of the Commonwealth. In fact, this is one of the matters in which we shall, under the present Bill, be holding the existing position while we consider the whole context of our future relationship with South Africa.
So far as the High Commission Territories are concerned, I should like to assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Gvernment's responsibility for them will be in no way altered or diminished with the advent of South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth. We will continue to meet our obligations, and to do all we can to further the interests of the three Territories and of those who live in them. Their long and loyal connection with the Crown will remain unaffected. The new situation may require certain administrative changes to be effected—for example, the continuation of Mafeking, situated as it is outside the Bechuanaland Protectorate of which it is the capital, is one that immediately springs to mind. But this and other matters are among the reasons for which we require the breathing space which this Bill provides.
I hope I have said enough, my Lords, to convince your Lordships that this Bill is needed, as my right honourable friend said, to win time; to win time not only in respect of United Kingdom Acts on which this Bill is effective, but also in relation to the far wider range of problems with reference to each of which we must work out a new relationship with the Republic of South Africa. We must not deal with these matters piecemeal. Clearly, we shall have to come back to this House at a later stage, not only to report on the conclusions we have reached, but also to present comprehensive legislation incorporating all the final changes in our law that seem necessary in consequence of South Africa's withdrawal from the Commonwealth, of our study of those conclusions, and of the outcome of such negotiations as we may have with the Government of South Africa.
We are pressing forward urgently with these studies, and if we can reduce the standstill period we shall certainly do so. But, as I have emphasised, this is

375
a problem without precedent in its range and complexity, and it would be wrong for us to rush our fences or, in accepting a shorter standstill period in the Bill, to find ourselves faced with the necessity of coming back to Parliament later with a request for an additional period of time in which to adjust the situation. My Lords, I hope you will not think that, because of the comparative brevity of my speech in introducing this Bill, either I or my colleagues are considering it in a cursory or perfunctory manner; or that we regard the departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth, with the consequent reappraisal of our relationship with her, in any way other than as a most grave matter requiring the most serious consideration.
This Bill, however, is in no sense a policy Bill. It merely preserves the status quo for up to one further year. When, in due course, legislation is brought before your Lordships' House by which the new relationship between the two countries will be effected, then will be the the appropriate time to debate our new policy towards South Africa. I hope, however, that those of your Lordships who are to speak in the debate will ask for elucidation on any points arising out of the Bill that you feel require it, and I will do my best to answer such points when I come to wind up the debate. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
4.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Duke was right, in introducing this Bill, to say that we do not wish to discuss again the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth or the impact of the withdrawal on the rest of the Commonwealth; for this Bill is consequential upon that decision. I think that the Government are very wise to take this precautionary measure to give them time in which to deal with matters that have to be negotiated between us and the Union of South Africa. The time factor is important. We are substituting a treaty relationship for a Commonwealth relationship, and time must be allowed in which to negotiate these treaties and to deal with the other matters that have
376
to be dealt with between us and the Union.
I remember, looking back, an interesting parallel in my own experience: the case of Burma. Burma, we agreed, should become a Republic outside the Commonwealth in the early part of 1947. But Burma did not, in fact, become a Republic outside the Commonwealth until January 1, 1948, which gave us the whole of the rest of the year 1947 to negotiate the various treaties—defence treaties, those concerned with citizenship, and so on—which had to be negotiated before Burma left the Commonwealth. In the present case, the Prime Ministers' Conference took place in March, and the Union decided formally to leave the Commonwealth and become a foreign country only two months later. It would therefore have been quite impossible for the Government to negotiate the necessary instruments in that very short period of time. Moreover, the negotiations that will have to take place with the Union of South Africa will be very much longer, very much more complex, than the negotiations that we had to enter into before we were able to reach agreement about treaties with Burma.
I was glad that the noble Duke mentioned, as one of the matters that have to be dealt with, administrative arrangements with the High Commission Territories. I was particularly glad that be referred to Mafeking, which is at present, of course, the headquarters of the High Commissioner, because when it becomes a town in a foreign country it would seem, on the face of it, to be less suitable as the headquarters for an officer who will administer the British High Commission Territories. I was also glad that the noble Duke said that Parliament would have an opportunity of discussing again the proposed agreements with the Union of South Africa and the proposed legislation before the agreements are embodied in treaties and before the legislation is introduced. I think this is important, because Parliament here does not have to ratify treaties, and the only way in which our opinion can be expressed about the contents of a treaty is by discussing the matter in advance.
I also thought that the noble Duke was right to limit the period of the standstill to one year. It is quite clear that we must stick to the principle that a

377
foreign country cannot continue to enjoy the advantages and privileges of a Commonwealth country: that principle must be upheld. My Lords, we support this Bill, and we regard it as an indispensable consequential and interim measure following the withdrawal of the Union from the Commonwealth.
4.58 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, apologise for speaking yet again on South Africa and Basutoland so shortly after I have spoken before, but, as I told the House at that time, I have a deep interest in these countries. This is a standstill measure, as has been said. I should like to say my humble word of praise to the noble Duke for the friendly way in which he presented this Bill to us, and to the noble Earl opposite for the way he welcomed it. The noble Duke spoke of a new relationship with a friendly foreign Power. I hope indeed that that is what will emerge from the talks that will follow this standstill measure. I do not think that a year is too long; nor do I suggest it is too short: I think it is just the right time to put in this Bill.
Very much depends, my Lords, upon the behaviour of this country and the behaviour of the governing races in South Africa—that is to say, the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people. Let us remember that they are, in fact, the governing races there, having been placed in that position by the Liberal Government of 1909 and having been there ever since, and that it is difficult for the tradition and the way of life of 50 years to be changed swiftly. If the evolution of a way of life in South Africa takes time, let us, I beg, be patient and appreciate that it will be more likely to evolve slowly, and in a manner which will enable our friendship with that country to continue, if we do not interfere with them. Would they not resent it if we were to tell them what they ought to do? Should we not resent it if their Parliament were to tell us what to do in our domestic affairs? I do not say that every aspect of the policy of every Government can be exclusively regarded as a matter for that Government only: there are matters which must impinge upon world opinion and upon world relationships. But if to the largest possible extent, during this year of discussion, we in Britain can leave
378
it to the pressures in South Africa to work themselves out, to that extent will the final friendly relationship between our two countries be the better.
This is all the more important, my Lords, because the Territory of Basutoland, as is well understood, is an enclave right in the middle of South Africa, depending for its protection on Her Majesty's Government but for its very life, its economic life, upon South Africa. It therefore seems to me that it cannot be emphasised too strongly that a friendly relationship among Britain and South Africa and Basutoland is absolutely essential in this sub-continent. I should deplore it if opinion in Britain during this period of discussion about these complex matters which my noble friend has outlined to us were to exacerbate the situation between our two countries. Rather would I beg, now that we are almost on the eve of the opening of this new chapter in South Africa's life, that we might join to wish her all the very best of good luck—or, as the Afrikaners would say, "Alles van die beste".
5.3 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. In the ordinary way, one would presumably have nothing much more to say, because the Bill as it stands must obviously command the support of all of us. I appreciate that it is there merely to gain time, and that later a discussion on any details or any decisions which may have been reached will be possible when we have to consider the legislative sanction for those decisions. But, my Lords, in view of what has appeared in the Press and in other means of publicity, it is perhaps just as well to make one or two general remarks.
I do not propose to enter into the questions which we discussed in March. We all had the opportunity of saying what we thought in that debate, and I do not propose to try to repeat anything that I said then; but I think that one should be very clear, and hope (I have no reason to suppose that the Government will not take this attitude towards these considerations) that there will be no specific or deliberate attempts to embarrass the South African Government because of a political system of which so many of us disapprove. I say that because one reads daily in the Press appeals to the Government to take some

379
sort of action of that kind, and it is desirable that the large number of us who totally disapprove of that attitude should say so. Surely we should proceed on the lines of negotiations with a friendly Power which is not a member of the Commonwealth, or which will not be then.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of large numbers of people in this country, it would be quite wrong to allow our dislike of the policy of apartheid to colour in any way negotiations, which should be conducted on the basis of mutual national interest. All questions—economic, social, military and so on—fall under this head. In this matter there should be no punitive flavour or pressure to show dislike of another Government's internal policy. After all, South Africa holds hundreds of thousands of men and women of British birth, and to my mind it is nonsense to talk of her as a foreign country in any other than the purest technical sense. In any case, any attempt to bring pressure to bear on the South African Government over this issue of apartheid would surely be likely only to consolidate the support for that Government in that country. No Government likes to be dictated to by people from another country.
As I see it, the alternative questions to put to ourselves are: are we more anxious to upset the present South African Government at any price, or is our anxiety to help the South African peoples of all races as much as we can in a spirit of reciprocal benefit? The answer surely is in the negative to the first question, and in the affirmative to the second. In the case of a war enemy, Germany, we have succeeded in separating in our minds the people of Germany and the Government that we held guilty. In the case of our dealings with Soviet Russia, whose internal and external policies we abhor, we can still separate in our minds those who are responsible for those policies and the people with whom we do our best to trade and to have relations. In the case of moral reform, there should be no difficulty in a similar mental separation in the case of a country which has always been our friend and which is so largely peopled by people of our own stock. I support this Bill as providing a breathing space during which all the multitude of
380
questions—whether they be defence, trade, currency, nationality, or any of the others—may be considered and negotiated upon in a spirit of enlightened and, above all, friendly self-interest, with no thought of punitive pressure or political hostility.
5.9 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, this Bill is the first of several legislative actions which Parliament is going to consider as a result of the parting by South Africa of the ways of South Africa and ourselves after fifty years of association in Commonwealth affairs. As the Under-Secretary who introduced the Bill said, the Government are going to face many problems for negotiation and settlement which I feel sure will be approached with understanding and dignity on the part of both parties. Therefore, I think the Bill is right, and worthy of our support. The Minister who introduced it said, quite rightly, that this Bill is not policy: it preserves the status quo. But in considering policy during the standstill period in the coming months, the Government will naturally pay heed to the views expressed by Parliament. That, therefore, is my justification for the very few remarks which I wish to make on one aspect of our relationship in the future with South Africa—that is, the economic aspect.
As the Minister has said, South Africa at present enjoys a trading position with this country as a member of the Commonwealth; and I believe Her Majesty's Government have something of a dilemma to resolve, because on the one hand—as the Minister said, quite rightly, and as has been said by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State in another place—we cannot go on as before and virtually say that membership of the Commonwealth means nothing. Things cannot be as they were before. On the other hand, we and South Africa both have an urgent need for the greatest possible amount of trade. We do not want to hurt ourselves just to spite South Africa, and we do not want to hurt the people of South Africa, particularly when we remember that of the 13 million inhabitants, only some 700,000 voted for the Republic. I feel it is unthinkable that we should deliberately deal a blow to the progress and livelihood of those millions.

381
The trade position of South Africa is governed, basically, by one of the Ottawa Agreements, terminable at six months' notice by either party, and supplemented by certain subsequent Agreements, including South Africa's participation in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, with its preferential position, and South Africa's right to join the Conference in settling prices and quantities to be placed on the market. Commonwealth preference is enjoyed by South Africa on 50 per cent. of her exports, excluding gold, and, in the other direction, 20 per cent. of our exports to South Africa enjoy a Commonwealth preference on entering that country. We are South Africa's best customer. In 1958 we took 30 per cent. of her exports, and the rest of the Commonwealth took another 20 per cent. From our point of view, South Africa is our fifth best customer, ranking in 1960, after the United States, Australia, Canada and Western Germany.
I trust that I have not wearied your Lordships with too many figures, but I have quoted those to show that we should do ourselves a bad turn economic- ally if we were to reduce in value our economic relationship with South Africa. If we maintain our trading position with her and do not repudiate the Ottawa Agreements it is likely other countries in the Commonwealth will follow our example. I believe that the answer to the dilemma as to how we are to preserve our trading position with South Africa, while at the same time making clear that things are not as they were when South Africa was a member of the Commonwealth, lies in bringing home, by effective action and differences in fields other than economic matters, to South Africa, to the Commonwealth and the rest of the world, that the Common- wealth means something.
There will be a great loss to South Africa of what I would call, generally, "family benefits" in not being a member of the Commonwealth. Not least, she will lose, I believe, her only ally in the United Nations—which has been this country. There will be loss of close consultation in scientific fields, in technical
382
research, which is to a considerable extent pooled among Commonwealth countries. And in many directions, political and social, the loss will be felt. So I sincerely hope that we shall not speed the process of estrangement from South Africa in future years by hurting her economically but that we shall, in the standstill period, negotiate a position which will allow our trade relations not only to be as close in the future as they have been in the past but even to expand to the mutual benefit of ourselves and South Africa, while at the same time showing South Africa that there are differences, in directions other than in preferential trade, between being a member of the Commonwealth and not being a member.
5.15 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his extremely helpful speech, and my noble friends on this side of the House for their helpful contributions. I cannot give any undertakings at this stage, and I will say merely that I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give due weight and pay due heed to the remarks which have been made by my noble friends Lord Milverton, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and, last but by no means least, my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on trade between the two countries. I do not think your Lordships would wish me to elaborate any further at this stage. But I again thank all Members of your Lordships' House for the very friendly and helpful reception you have given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past five o'clock.