Lords Sitting of 30 April 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

NORFOLK RAIL CLOSURE: COST OF ALTERNATIVE SERVICES
3.5 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what additional annual expenditure will be incurred by the Exchequer or local authorities in providing additional facilities for conveying children to and from the secondary modern or other schools in neighbouring towns, subsidising additional bus services for public use and substituting road for rail transport in respect of the parcels post in the rural areas of Norfolk by reason of the proposed closing of the railway from East Dereham to Wellsnext-the-Sea.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the Railways Board are responsible for ensuring the provision of the alternative bus services which my right honourable friend has required to be available when the closure takes place. If any subsidy is required, it is not expected to exceed £3,000 a year. I am told that, until the full details of the new bus services are available, the local education authority cannot say whether they will be put to any additional expense on the transport of school children. No parcel mails are carried by trains on this line, and therefore no extra expenditure will fall on the General Post Office on that account.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I say that on March 17 last, in reply to the Question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Stonham,
1044
he made a statement that the net annual saving by reason of the closing of this line would be £2,000? Seven stations are involved, so the average saving is about £300 per station—a saving of less than £1 per day. This will be entirely wiped out—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WISE: I am coming to my question in a moment. Is the noble Lord aware that this saving will be entirely wiped out by the figure he has just given to your Lordships? Will the noble Lord impress upon the Minister of Transport the extreme folly of inflicting hardship on people in rural areas in order to save a few pounds, or even a few pence?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I had rather imagined that that was the trap the noble Lord might fall into. It is perfectly true that the figure I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on March 17, in relation to the saving on the passenger closure of this line, was £2,000. To be strictly accurate, that was a round figure and, for the sake of the record, the actual figure is very close to £2,300. But I am told that the intention of the Railways Board is to close the freight side of the line as well, and the saving which will be achieved on this line will be £37,000 net. If this line were to be kept open for the reason the noble Lord suggests, and the freight service, which is losing heavily, were to be shut, that £37,000 would be transferred to the passenger service. It is to that sum that the noble Lord should relate the passenger saving.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only matter which had to be considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee at the public inquiry was the cessation or withdrawal of passenger services, and the answer he has now given is, in fact, no answer at all? Is he further aware that the T.U.C.C. were informed by the Railways Board officially that the saving which would be made by the withdrawal of the passenger service on this line was, not £2,000, but £26,700? Does the noble Lord not think, therefore, that they might have given a different recommendation if they had learned that the alleged loss was of a trifling character? Does he not think,

1045
in view of what my noble friend has said about the unquestionable hardship caused in this area, that he should ask his right honourable friend to look at the matter again?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord. I am, in fact, quite well informed as to the procedure when a line is proposed for closure, and I know exactly what the T.U.C.C. have to consider. What I was giving was an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who was trying to make out that my right honourable friend was doing an extremely stupid thing. I was endeavouring to show that he was doing nothing of the kind, and that I think I have done. I think, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will appreciate that the consent to the closure of this line was from my right honourable friend and not from the T.U.C.C. The T.U.C.C. made certain recommendations, in view of what they considered to be the necessity to relieve a certain degree of hardship, in the shape of alternative services, and, having taken all other relative factors into account, my right honourable friend came to his decision.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the T.U.C.C. are given these figures in order that they may consider whether the alternatives to alleviate hardship are reasonable. The whole point is that they formed their judgment on information which we now know to be inaccurate. My point to the noble Lord is: does he not think it at least possible that their recommendations might have been different if they had been told that the loss was £2,000? This line serves Walsingham, and thousands of pilgrims go to the shrine of Thomas Walsingham. Are not these considerations to be taken into account? Does the noble Lord not agree that the whole question should be looked at again, in view of what is in any case a very trifling loss compared with the inconvenience and loss of amenity to a large number of people?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, those considerations have been taken into account already, and I think I have answered this Question pretty accurately.

PROPOSED EAST ANGLIAN RAIL CLOSURES
3.13 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the annual saving, if any, at Flordon, Forncett, Tivetshall, Burston, Wellis, Finningham, Haughley and Needham Market Stations by reason of the proposed closing to passenger traffic of these stations between Norwich and Ipswich; and, whether, before any are closed, a thorough investigation will be made as to the hardship which will be caused to passengers who regularly use these stations to travel to the towns covered by this section of the railway for educational, business, domestic and recreational purposes.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Railways Board have not yet given statutory notice under Section 56 of the Transport Act of a proposal to close these stations. If and when they do so, users will have an opportunity to lodge objections with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for East Anglia. The Committee will consider their objections and report to my right honourable friend on the hardship they consider would arise from closure. He will decide whether to give his consent after full consideration of the hardship to users and all other relevant factors.
It is the Board's practice to give the Consultative Committee a statement of the direct costs and receipts attributable to a passenger service proposed for closure. This information is passed on to the objectors by the Committee. But at this stage, when the Board have not yet announced their proposals, my right honourable friend has no information as to what the financial effects would be.
LORD WISE: My Lords, is it not the fact that these closures have already been announced in the Press?
LORD CHESHAM: Officially and statutorily, no, my Lords; but I am told that there have been rumours of

1047
what are thought to be the Railways Board's plans. That is what has been in the Press.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether they will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I will, with the permission of the House, answer the noble Lord's Question as soon as convenient after half-past three.

NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ISLE OF WIGHT RIVER AND WATER AUTHORITY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS (SPECIFIED COMMODITIES) ORDER, 1964
3.16 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I think it might be convenient to your Lordships if we considered the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) Order, 1964, and the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Order, 1964, simultaneously. Section 1 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, enables the three Agricultural Ministers to introduce by Order minimum import price and levy arrangements for the purpose of maintaining a stable market for agricultural and horticultural produce of any description produced in the United Kingdom. During the passing of this legislation through this House, it was explained that the Government intended to exercise these powers in rela-
1048
tion to certain cereals and cereal products.
Your Lordships will recall that there are basically three stages in introducing a minimum import price and levy régime on particular commodities under the powers in the Act. First, the Ministers must specify in an Order the commodities in relation to which they wish to be able to exercise the minimum import price and levy powers. Secondly, the Ministers prescribe the minimum import price levels to apply to the different "specified commodities" or subdivisions of them. Thirdly, they prescribe the arrangements relating to the charging of levies on individual commodities for the purpose of maintaining the minimum import price levels. When these arrangements have been prescribed by Order, levies may then be charged as necessary in order to maintain the minimum import price levels.
The two Orders which are before your Lordships cover the first two of the stages I have outlined. The Order specifying the commodities has the effect of defining the precise field of commodities in relation to which the minimum import price and levy powers may be exercised by the competent Ministers. The initial list of cereals and cereal products covers the main cereals, the cereal flours, various worked cereals and cereal offals. The secondary products have, of course, had to be covered in order to prevent imports of these from undermining the market for the main cereals. But the arrangements have been confined to only those secondary commodities which it was considered essential to cover in order to achieve the basic purpose of greater stability in the United Kingdom cereals market. If in the future it were found necessary, in the light of experience, to add to the initial list of "specified commodities", this would involve the laying of an amending Order, which would also require to be approved by Affirmative Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
I come now to the second Order which is before your Lordships. This prescribes, in the Schedule, the levels of the minimum import prices for the different "specified commodities" and for certain sub-divisions of them. The Government have made it clear that the intention of the minimum import price

1049
arrangements on cereals is to cut out the unrealistically low-priced imports which have from time to time come to the United Kingdom market. The minimum import price levels have, therefore, been pitched towards the lower end of the range within which import prices have normally fluctuated but at levels which cut out the troughs. Each of the main cereals, with the exception of wheat, is subject to a single minimum import price. Wheat and wheat flour have, however, been sub-divided and different minimum import price levels are being applied to the different subdivisions in order to take account of the wider quality differentials which exist between the different varieties of these commodities. As to the relationship between the minimum import prices for the main cereals, this has been based on such factors as differences in quality and feeding value; the normal market differentials; the competitiveness of the imported product with our own home grown cereals, and other factors.
It has been made clear throughout discussions on the new policy for cereals, both before and during the passage of the legislation from which these Orders derive, that the intention is not to apply minimum import prices with the purpose of raising the general price level for cereals in the United Kingdom. But, unless we take steps to control the prices at which imports of cereals can come into our market, we shall continue to face the possibility of disruption from supplies at rock bottom prices and the repercussions which this has on the returns of our own growers and on the Exchequer's bill for deficiency payments.
The House will note that the minimum import price levels in the second Order are to come into effect on a date or dates which are still to be appointed. This is necessary because, as I have explained, the arrangements for cereals have to be completed by a further Order laying down the detailed provisions in relation to the charging of levies. The import price levels cannot come into force until the arrangements for maintaining or enforcing them have been prescribed. But the Government decided to bring the minimum import price levels
1050
before Parliament at the same time as the Order specifying the cereals and cereal products in order to enable them to be approved in advance and also to give the trade the maximum notice.
These Orders cover, therefore, the first two stages which I have outlined in introducing the very important new arrangements for the control of import prices for cereals. They will be supplemented in due course by an Order prescribing the detailed arrangements for the charging of levies, when necessary, to maintain the minimum import price levels. A White Paper which was laid before Parliament on April 15 gave the terms of the agreements which have already been concluded between the United Kingdom Government and the Governments of Australia, Canada, the United States of America and Argentina, under the terms of which these countries have undertaken to co-operate in the operation and observance of the minimum import prices. If, however, any "specified commodity" is available for import into the United Kingdom from an individual co-operating country at prices below the related minimum import price, the United Kingdom Government will have the right to impose levies on such imports so as to maintain the prescribed minimum.
The Government's policy is to proceed, so far as possible, by such agreements, and it is hoped that similar ones will be concluded with a number of our other suppliers. The levy arrangements Order, which will, as I have explained, be brought before Parliament at a later date, will be drafted in terms which reflect the agreements that have been concluded.
I should explain to the House that special arrangements have been worked out for Australian and Canadian wheat flour. It was not found possible to fit these wheat flours into the general arrangements in a way which took account of the special circumstances of this trade and maintained the Canadian and Australian preferences on wheat flour. The special arrangements provide for a related levy on Canadian and Australian flour when there is a levy on the corresponding wheat. They also include certain assurances and other detailed provisions. These arrangements are designed to safeguard the minimum import price system. The details of the special arrangements

1051
for Canadian and Austrialian wheat flour were published on Monday, and the necessary legislative provisions for these flours will be included in the levy arrangements Order to which I have referred, The arrangements for wheat flour as a whole are to be kept under review by a Flour Supervisory Committee, consisting of representatives of the United Kingdom, Australian, Canadian and United States Governments.
The minimum import price arrangements for cereals and cereal products, together with the standard quantity arrangements for domestic production outlined in the Annual Review White Paper, implement the new policy for cereals which was announced by the Minister of Agriculture last May in another place. These modifications in our existing arrangements for cereals are necessary if we are to maintain our system of support in the face of the growing pressures which have from time to time been placed upon it. They are designed to bring greater stability to our cereals market, and so to contain the cost to the Exchequer of the deficiency payments. I commend the two Orders which are before the House for approval, and beg to move the first Order.
Moved, That the draft Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) Order, 1964, laid before the House on the 15th of April, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his lucid exposure of the length to which the Government are willing to go in their determination to cut the Treasury costs of supporting the farmers' prices. It was a gallant but unavailing defence of the indefensible. I should like to ask the noble Lord a question with regard to the upper level, if I might put it, of the minimum import prices for wheat. I notice, for example, that those in item 5 of the Schedule are £26 a ton; and in item 6, £26 10s. a ton. They compare with the farmers' guaranteed price of £26 10s. a ton. I wonder to what extent, in fixing these minimum prices—which the noble Lord said were fixed at the lower levels of average recent prices—the Government had regard to the guaranteed prices,
1052
because, unless the noble Lord can give some other explanation, the top level of imported wheat prices have in fact been fixed virtually at the guaranteed prices, which may well produce price stability but will also virtually abolish the subsidy.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think I might help him on this point by pointing out that these prices relate to particular qualities of wheat. Of course, they do not relate to the whole range, as the noble Lord will have noticed.
LORD STONHAM: Of course I have noticed that, because it says so in the Order. I did not think it was necessary to read out the Order itself. I referred to items 5 and 6 and to the prices which are given. In fact, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Perhaps he will think about it.
To come to the lower end of the scale—£20 for barley (one fixed price), £20 10s. for denatured wheat, and £22 10s. for other wheat—it seems to me that these regulations are, in fact, nothing more than an insurance policy taken out by the Treasury, for which the housewife will be compelled to pay the premiums. That, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh pointed out a few days ago, is strictly in line with Conservative policy. As I mentioned, the minimum import price for barley has been fixed at 20s. a cwt. against the guaranteed price to home farmers of 26s 8d. a cwt.; and for wheat 20s. 6d. as against 26s. 6d.
I would put it to the noble Lord that under these Orders only two possible situations can arise. The first is that the interplay of supply and demand will keep true world prices above those minimum prices of 20s. or 20s. 6d. per cwt. minima. In that case nothing will happen and these two Orders will have no effect whatever. The second possibility, and in my view the far more likely one, is that world prices at least for part of each year, if they are not artificially distorted, will fall below the minima. Indeed, that is what the Order is for, as the noble Lord explained. If that happens, the effect of these Orders, despite the noble Lord's assurance that it was not the intention generally to raise prices in this country, will be to fix world minimum prices for the export

1053
of these cereals to this country. I do not think this can be denied because, as was explained previously, our main suppliers have agreed to take steps to see that their exporters do not sell below the minimum. So we are, in fact fixing a price.
As for the other countries who have not yet come to an agreement, they will not be such fools as to sell at an unnecessarily low price and so incur a levy. In any case, it is obvious that the grain will come on to the home market at an artificially inflated price. That is the whole object of this exercise. Farmers will pay more for their imported feeding-stuffs, and of course housewives will pay more for the end product. And these imposts, though concealed, will in my submission be substantial.
To take just one example, the imports of French wheat over recent years, which are now quite considerable, in 1959 we imported only some 1 million cwt. of wheat from France. There has been an increase every year since then, and last year we imported, not 1 million, but 5·2 million cwt. of wheat from France. That is a fivefold increase in five years. I notice that the minimum import price for European milling wheat is fixed at £22 10s. a ton in this Order. Last year, from April to June the import price of French wheat was an average of £21 10s. a ton; that is £1 per ton below the minimum now proposed to be fixed. The current price was £21 15s.—I say "the current price was", which sound a bit Irish, because I am absolutely certain that as soon as these Orders were laid and the French saw what the minimum import price was, £22 10s., they adjusted their price accordingly. Indeed, it would be doing them an injustice to think they would not do it and did not do it.
That is what is happening and that is what will happen, and I suppose the Government would regard that as a success for the Order. It is a success the noble Lord wanted to see—namely, that the margin between guaranteed price and market price would be narrowed, less subsidy paid to the farmers, and the Minister would not have to secure approval for a supplementary estimate. But it would be a success dearly bought and paid for by the housewife, because
1054
that extra £2 a ton at the ports will become at least £3 or £4 in the shops. It is another fractional increase in the cost of living, an added pressure for increased wages and further inducement to inflation, and the farmers will not benefit by one penny.
We are all agreed on the need for stable markets for agriculture, and indeed no one was more successful at providing it than my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh. This is not the way to secure stability for agriculture. Day by day we get remarkable evidence of the way in which the Government dispense their bounty. To-day it is the turn of the foreign farmer, who can look forward with confidence to millions of pounds of unasked for extra profit provided by the temporarily helpless British consumers. The only consolation is that, fortunately, they will not be helpless very much longer, because when the next harvest is gathered we shall have a Government in power which, while playing a full and responsible part with other nations in sensible distribution of the world's food supplies, will see that our own farmers and consumers do not labour under expensive handicaps such as these—I was going to say very foolish, but I will say reprehensible—Orders impose.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is arguing in favour of "dumping" prices for agricultural products for this country? There is no such thing as a world price for any agricultural product, so far as I know, which is not in some degree a result of artificial aid in the country in which that grain or other product is produced. What I understand the noble Lord to say is that he would like to see these products dumped on the British markets.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Viscount had been here at the Second Reading of the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill he would have known better than to ask that question. I hope he will do me the honour of reading the speech I made on that occasion. I am not in favour of dumping—of course not; but I am in favour of a guaranteed market for home farmers built up in a way which does not give foreign producers unasked for profits and impose further burdens on the housewife.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
3.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might now answer the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put to me earlier to-day on the subject of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and what communication the Prime Minister had received from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia about the Conference. The Answer is as follows.
The meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers are, by tradition convened by the British Prime Minister, who in making the arrangements seeks to meet the wishes of his Commonwealth colleagues. It has long been recognised that the only persons who attend these meetings of right are the Prime Ministers of the fully independent countries of the Commonwealth. Therefore, before issuing invitations to the Prime Minister of any country which is not independent the British Government have always thought it right to satisfy themselves that this would be generally acceptable to other members.
In accordance with this practice, we told the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that if he so wished we were ready to consult the Prime Ministers of the independent member countries about the question of an invitation to him. The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia replied that he considered that he was entitled as of right to receive an invitation to the meeting, and that he did not therefore wish the British Government to consult other Commonwealth Governments about it. We have asked him to consider the matter further, since we would not feel it right to depart from the usual practice.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his statement. May I ask him whether the Government will make it perfectly clear to the Government of Southern Rhodesia that the British Government's view about the locus of Southern Rhodesia in relation to an invitation to the Prime Ministers' Conference is shared by both the major Parties in this country? May I also ask him (because
1056
it did not seem to be absolutely clear from the statement), whether, if the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia changes his mind and asks for an invitation, as a matter of courtesy and practice no such invitation will be issued without the agreement of the other members of the Commonwealth?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Lord the leader of the House for his statement, which really repeats what he was good enough to tell me in this House last week. I think the Government have been put in an embarrassing situation, and we on these Benches take the view that the course which the Government have taken is entirely right.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for what the two noble Lords have said. I think the noble Earl has misunderstood the position, My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia to consider the matter further—the matter being whether or not he would like us to consult the Prime Ministers of the indepent member countries about the question of an invitation to him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself absolutely clear. I understood that in that event the Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries would be consulted. What I wanted to know was not only whether they would be consulted but whether their agreement would be obtained before Her Majesty's Government decided to issue an invitation.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am sure that would be so.
LORD REA: Would that be majority agreement or unanimous agreement?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think matters concerning the Commonwealth are always by unanimous agreement.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, has it been considered whether other Commonwealth countries might be agreeeable to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia coming for part of the Conference—namely, for the discussion of the Southern Rhodesia case—by invitation of other Commonwealth Prime Ministers? It seems to me that

1057
if the other Commonwealth countries were asked if they objected to his coming for part of the sessions, that would dispose of the question of his right of access to the Conference.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that is a very interesting suggestion, and one that I should like to pass on to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS (SPECIFIED COMMODITIES) ORDER, 1964
3.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am replying to only one noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as has happened on a number of occasions in the past. He raised, I think, four main questions—at any rate, I recorded four main questions. He asked my agreement to a statement he made, that our efforts were to cut the Treasury cost and to charge a premium to the housewives. On that, I think it only right to remind him that it is not the Treasury cost; it has to be the taxpayer's cost—the Treasury gets its money mainly from taxes, and most families buying food contain a taxpayer.
I took up, but apparently not sufficiently to the noble Lord's satisfaction, his question about what he called maximum prices. As a matter of fact, I misunderstood his term. He was referring, as I said, to the prices charged for specific qualities of wheat, and I tried to point out that these wheats were of a superior quality, and that the minimum import prices are sub-divided as to the types of wheat, in order to make fair the corresponding prices. In fact the minimum import price that he mentioned, £26 10s., is for the superior North American hard wheats which are not produced in this country, and the minimum import price for Continental wheat, which is the wheat that mainly corresponds to the type produced in this country, is £22 10s. I hope that I have persuaded him that this is fair.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he has quite persuaded me that it is fair to
1058
sub-divide prices according to qualities: I am not disputing that at all. The point that I am making is that there is only one guaranteed home price, £26 10s. If the minimum import price of any quality is £26 10s. and the wheat comes in at that price, and that is the market, then, quite obviously, no subsidy will be payable because of the difference in the level of market. It will be the same price.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry. I wish I could make myself plainer to the noble Lord. The fact is that this relates to a type of wheat which we do not produce in this country.
LORD STONHAM: With respect to the noble Lord, he has told me something of which I am well aware. If wheat is imported and the price is fixed at £26 10s. per ton, and the farmers' guaranteed price here is £26 10s., although for a different type of wheat, obviously there will be no subsidy payable. That is what I would have thought.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord and I are not going to understand each other in regard to this question. If, in fact, we were able to produce this superior type of hard wheat, then presumably the price for the domestic wheat would be as high as the price for the corresponding American wheat; but at the moment we cannot produce that wheat.
The noble Lord also said that the effect of these Orders would be to bring grain on to the market at an artificially high price. That is not so. I quite see that it is a political point which he is tempted to make, and which others of his colleagues have felt themselves tempted to make. But what we are, in fact, doing is preventing artificially low prices which have upset the market in recent years. The noble Lord referred in particular to the question of French wheat coming in last year below what is now to be the minimum import price for corresponding wheat, and yet he objected to our proposed arrangements. I should be happy to be present when he went down to explain to his farming friends in Somerset that he thought this was a bad thing, and that he thought that the French wheat ought to continue to undercut our wheat. It would be an interesting exercise of the

1059
noble Lord's persuasiveness at which I would gladly be present. Finally, and most interestingly, he implied in his closing remarks, I thought quite strongly, that a theoretical future Labour Government would rescind these Orders and scrap the whole system. That I found most interesting, and I thought that it really should be more widely known.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, a week ago to-day the noble Lord literally invited me to say something, and then, when I had said something, he proceeded to charge me almost with having perverted the Holy Gospel and made use of terminological inexactitudes. I do not intend to give him an opportunity of repeating that statement. I should, however, like to congratulate him upon this second instalment of the Conservative Party's efforts to "Set the people free!" It has taken them eleven years, since 1953, to prepare themselves for the second move in setting the people free, and I should like to say just this one word in conclusion. If he would be good enough to take a Gallup Poll of Conservative Members sitting in the House at this moment, plus Independents, plus Opposition Members, too, to ascertain how many of them understand the policy that he has enunciated this afternoon, it would tell us a good deal that we do not know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to correct something that I said in answer to a supplementary question by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel? The noble Earl asked me whether there was a unanimity ruling for this Commonwealth Conference; and I said, Yes. I should have known that that is not so; there is not. So if a situation arose in which the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia did change his mind, the Prime Ministers themselves of course would have to decide what to do.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that would then be a matter for them? They would get together and they would decide, possibly by a majority?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.

PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS (MINIMUM IMPORT PRICE LEVELS) ORDER, 1964
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the draft Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Order, 1964, laid before the House on the 15th of April, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES BILL [H.L.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law on diplomatic privileges and immunities by giving effect to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, this Bill—for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, this useful little Bill—proposes to make permanent the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, a temporary Act, which has been continued yearly until now by the Expiring Laws Continuance procedure. I must first deal briefly with the 1949 Act and the reason for it. In the years following the last war there was a scarcity of shop premises, and it was alleged that shop tenants were being asked to pay exorbitant increases in

1061
rent or were being evicted without the option of buying premises. A Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. T. M. Taylor, which sat in 1947, thought that the situation did not require legislation. However, in 1948, the complaints multiplied and the Committee was reconstituted under the chairmanship of Mr. W. H. Guthrie, now Lord Guthrie. The Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, was based on their Interim Report.
The Act provides that where a landlord of a shop has given notice of termination of a tenancy, and the tenant cannot obtain a renewal of the tenancy on terms satisfactory to him, he may apply to the sheriff. The sheriff is empowered to determine that the tenancy shall be renewed for a period not exceeding one year at a time, at such rent and on such terms and conditions as in all the circumstances he thinks reasonable. The parties are thereafter deemed to have entered into a new lease on the period, terms and conditions fixed by the sheriff. The sheriff may dismiss an application if he thinks it reasonable to do so. He is required to dismiss an application if he is satisfied on one or other of the points in Section 3 of the 1949 Act.
The other provisions are that the sheriff may grant repeated renewals of a tenancy, each for a period not exceeding one year, and that the proceedings before the sheriff are dealt with under the simple procedure appropriate to the small debt court. The 1949 Act was enacted to expire on December 31, 1951. In their final Report the Guthrie Committee recommended that it should be continued until 1955. It was in fact continued until 1958, when another review took place. In that year a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. I. H. Shearer (now the Lord Advocate) considered whether there was need to continue the Act after 1958. They found that the Act still served a useful purpose, and recommended that it should be continued for a period not exceeding five years.
Both these Committees thought the Act should be temporary, yet we are making it permanent. Let me explain how we reached that decision. During 1963 we carried out a review in which we consulted the interests who had given
1062
evidence to the Shearer Committee. We obtained the views of 33 federations, associations or societies of whom 26 favoured the continuance of the Act. We had also to bear in mind that the Act was still being made use of. The number of applications to the sheriff, which varied between 300 and 350 a year until 1957, has been declining since then. In 1960 it was 133; the next year 118; then 136; and last year it was 102. But use apart, there is the important consideration that the very existence of the Act must lead to fair bargains being struck without recourse to the sheriff—which is a protection for all concerned not to be lightly discarded.
After careful consideration, we decided that the weight of evidence and advantage is in favour of continuing the 1949 Act. There is still a sellers' market in shops and this may place the tenant at a disadvantage. Nor does it seem likely that this situation will change greatly in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, most Scottish tenancies are still on a year-to-year basis and the notice of termination, which may under Statute be as little as 40 days, can create hardship for the tenant and the successful application to the sheriff can give him a breathing space. So much for the 1949 Act.
I now turn to the pesent Bill. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides that the Act shall now continue in force until Parliament otherwise determines. That is the only provision of substance. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 repeals transitional provisions in the 1949 Act which became spent in 1949. I can recommend this Bill to your Lordships. The 1949 Act has been in operation for over fourteen years, and there is ample evidence that it has worked well. In particular, there is general confidence—and we thank them for it—in the way that the sheriffs have used their powers under the Act. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
3.53 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the very clear statement he gave of the purpose of the original Act of 1949,

1063
and for the quite unsolicited, and rather unusual, compliment he paid to the wisdom of the Government of that date in passing the measure. However, I would remind your Lordships that the Minister stated that, when the first Act came in in 1949, it was intended to deal with a temporary situation arising largely from the shortage of shops following wartime conditions. It is perhaps a reflection upon the present Government that during the past twelve years their rent policies, in particular, have succeeded in making permanent the situation which in 1949 was hoped to be only temporary. I cannot therefore return the compliment by congratulating the Government upon succeeding in making a permanent necessity of this Act.
However, one must deal with facts as they are, and the Minister has clearly outlined, in relation to a number of cases which have been put forward, the need for this Act at the present time. On a further point which he made, the effect of the Act in perhaps encouraging negotiated agreements between owners and shopkeepers is very much more important than the number of cases which actually go to court. Therefore, I cannot do other than support the Second Reading.
However, in the discussion of the Bill in another place another aspect emerged. An Amendment was moved on the subject of compensation which might be payable to shopkeepers for fixtures which they have installed in a shop and for good will they might have built up, provided they had a tenancy. I believe that the period in the Amendment was not less than five years. Having regard to the uncertainties aroused among shopkeepers by another measure which your Lordships will be considering in due course, it might be wise to consider the possibility of extending the right of compensation to shopkeepers who are deprived of their tenancy in these circumstances. I shall probably submit an Amendment to this effect in due course. At present, however, the Bill as it stands is good. It may be that it can be made a little better.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am glad he is not suggesting that there should be compensation provisions in
1064
this Bill. It is a wide question and should be examined in its right context.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I suggested that I shall be moving that at the appropriate stage of this Bill.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am quite sure that I have an appropriate answer for the noble Lord. I am never afraid to say that a Bill is a good one when it is good, and I say that this is a good Bill. It is not a reflection on the present Government that, with the redevelopment of some large-scale areas, there must be some protection for the tenant, and this is a very good protection. I would congratulate Dundee and Glasgow on the way they have handled this matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

HARBOURS BILL
3.56 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Establishment of National Ports Council, and principal duties thereof]:
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "charged" to insert:
"with the duty of formulating and keeping under review, a national plan for the development of harbours in Great Britain and".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, moved an Amendment—which found some favour with the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Shackleton—that something should be included in Clause 1 of the Bill to indicate that the National Ports Council's functions would include the very important one of working out an overall plan. At that time I said that I was in agreement with that in principle, but was worried about the possible inhibiting effect that could be imported into the Bill if we were not careful. I do not think there is any need for me to describe this again, and, after more thought than is reflected in what appears

1065
to be the rather simple wording which has been arrived at, I am now quite sure that we can do what the noble Lord wished without any of the unfortunate and dangerous effects. That is the substance of my Amendment which I hope your Lordships will approve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("charged") insert ("with the duty of formulating and keeping under review, a national plan for the development of harbours in Great Britain and").(Lord Chesham. )
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and also to extend to him my congratulations on having found a form of words which evaded me and which brings this important duty to the notice of the public by getting it into the Bill without the inhibiting effects to which he referred.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, we on this side welcome this Amendment. We are very pleased to see that the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary have seen fit to accept this form of words which, in our opinion, as was stated by noble Lords on this side, strengthens the Bill. We welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Promotion by the Council of research, and training and education]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential and is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("workers") to ("and") in line 38.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a further Amendment which I have put down in view of an undertaking I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to look at his suggestion that Clause 3 should be amended to enable the Council to make charges in respect of research, just as they could in respect of training and education. On reflection it seemed to me that the suggestion was a reasonable one, and so this Amendment went down. The only point I need mention, which your Lordships will
1066
probably have noted, in any case, is that there can be a charge only with a person's or body's agreement, and only for research to which they have also agreed. I think that to take power to force it on them, so to speak, would be regarded by all your Lordships as unreasonable, and therefore the Amendment is in this form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, at end insert—
("(5) The Council may make, in or towards satisfaction of expenses incurred by them in promoting research into any matter at the instance or with the consent of any person or body, charges of such amounts as may be agreed between them and that person or body.")—(Lord Chesham. )
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to do. I was rather wondering, from looking again at what we said on the last occasion, whether the Amendment was necessary and whether Clause 4, without the restriction of the later Amendment put into it, would not have provided the Council with funds. Is it because this is in the case of an undertaking to a particular individual authority that it is necessary to take this specific power? I fully accept that if the charge is always specific to an individual, it is right to get consent as opposed to a general levy.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the idea there is, of course, that this widening of the power to charge for research scoops in a great many more people than authorities themselves. That is its whole idea. We intended to bring underneath this particular umbrella all the people who were carrying on what we might call the ancillary trades. Therefore I think it is very necessary to have this provision in the Bill.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, there is only one proviso that I would add. It is obvious that the firms who are willing and are going to take part in the scheme are going to benefit from research, but there will still be certain people left who will benefit from research by the contributions of others. I do not see how that can be avoided, but no doubt with the example of many joining they will ultimately follow.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provision of funds for the Council]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) in the exercise of their powers uncle subsection (1) of the last foregoing section or in the discharge of a duty imposed on them by virtue of subsection (2) of that section;
(b) in the discharge of liabilities in respect of money borrowed by them;").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Control of harbour development
9.—
(11) The Minister may by order made under this subsection substitute for the sum of £500,000 mentioned in subsection (6) above such other sum as is specified in the order; but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 links with No. 6 and both are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out from ("it") to end of line 6.
Page 9, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) A person undertaking, or securing the undertaking of, a project under an authorisation for the time being subject to any conditions having effect by virtue of subsection (3) or subsection (4) above shall comply with those conditions.").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments 7 and 8 are linked and they are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 36, leave out ("other than one")
Page 9, line 37, after ("above") insert ("otherwise than").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 45, after second ("of") insert ("the execution of").—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I accept of course that this is a drafting Amendment, but I was wondering whether the noble Lord could explain what it means. The words at present in the Bill are "undertaking of" works, and the Amendment says "execution of" works. So far as I can see, the only difference between undertaking and executing is, perhaps, that undertaking is starting something and executing is seeing it through to the finish. But if the clause bites on an undertaking, it does not seem to me necessary to include the word "execution". If it is only intended to bite if the works are executed, then the word "undertaking" should be left out. I really do not understand the purpose of the Amendment, and perhaps the noble Lord could explain.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is not as complicated as the noble Viscount says. The purpose of the drafting Amendment is to introduce into subsection (7) a reference to the execution of works, which corresponds to similar references in subsections (1) and (9). It is merely to keep them in line.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.8 p.m.
LORD REA LORD REA moved, in subsection (11), to leave out "other" and insert "greater". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment to alter one word is to allay what I think are the genuine fears of companies and others in the private sector of harbour works and ancillary undertakings of that sort. The ceiling of £500,000 in Clause 9 gives them a protection against what might be termed interference by any future Minister of Transport—and I am not, of course, talking of the present Minister—who might seek to use this clause to take charge of all harbour work and more or less nationalise it by the use of a lower figure.
Although the provision calls for an Affirmative Resolution of each House, I submit that the dangers of the £500,000 being reduced by some future Government, with possibly a majority obedient to the Party line, are such that the Minister ought not to be given a power to vary downwards, but of course he should have power to vary upwards. With increasing costs of labour and

1069
goods it is likely that it may be necessary at some future time to increase the amount of £500,000 within the spirit of this Bill, but I do not think it would be within the spirit of this Bill if that figure were reduced. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he would accept this small Amendment to-day.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("other") and insert ("greater").—(Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord has put forward this Amendment, because I think the effect of it is undesirably restrictive on what it is intended the Bill should contain. I believe that his fears on behalf of the interests he mentioned are exaggerated, as I think I shall be able to show in a moment. It has been recognised that without experience of operation of a system of capital development control it is not very easy to form a final view on what scope that control ought to have. This is a matter of a flat monetary limit on a variety of schemes. I suppose one could say that, with experience of operation of capital development control, there ought to be a sophisticated kind of differentiation between the limit that one applies to different classes of capital development, but I believe that, certainly at this stage, it would be very difficult and over-sophisticated to try to bring in a scheme like that.
I think it is most necessary to keep the Minister's power to vary the figure downwards as well as upwards, because it is possible, although I do not think it is very probable, that there might be attempts to evade the control by splitting schemes in two, each port coming to below the £500,000 mark and thereby avoiding control. I do not think it is very likely that that would happen, but I think the power ought to be there in case it did. All such limits are bound to be arbitrary to some extent, but we think that this limit is set about right and should prove effective for quite a long time.
The reassurance I should like to give to the noble Lord is this: first, that I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Ports Council would want to propose any variation in this unless there were
1070
very good reasons for doing SO; secondly, if they did propose any such variation, the order which the Minister would have to make for the purpose would have to be placed before Parliament and be subject to Affirmative Resolution. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I assure him it would. I think that that ought to provide a very adequate safeguard against anything there may be in the fears the noble Lord has expressed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord has dealt with this matter so clearly. I must say, to be frank, that I thought this, as did my noble friends, an absurd Amendment. I do not quite know why the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has brought such a suspicious mind to bear. We have well-established Parliamentary customs in this matter; and what justification there is for saying that any Government are going to try nationalisation—and I do not see how you achieve it in the way he suggested—by the back door, I do not know. But, in any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, there is perfectly satisfactory Parliamentary control. I should like to see what would happen to a Government which did try to do it; and, in any case, I do not think they could.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 [Enforcement of control of harbour development]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 46, leave out ("given") and insert ("granted").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, leave out from ("of") to ("prohibition") in line 4, and insert ("a contravention, or an apprehended contravention, of, or a failure to comply with, any such").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("constructing").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("of") to ("prohibition") in line 39 and insert ("a contravention, or an apprehended contravention, of, or a failure to comply with, any such").— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Minister's powers, on application of harbour authorities, or others, to make orders for securing harbour efficiency, etc.]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, after ("section") insert ("and to the following provisions of this Act.")— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Minister's powers, on application of intending undertakers, or others, to make orders conferring powers for improvement, construction, etc., of harbours]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, also, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("modification, any provision of") and insert ("modifications, any provision of the").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Harbour reorganisation schemes]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("such a body as aforesaid") and insert ("a body constituted by the scheme").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.16 p.m.
LORD REA LORD REA moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the inclusion in any
1072
harbour reorganisation scheme of any provision which confers upon any of the relevant authorities the exclusive right to carry on in or in any part of the group to which the scheme relates a business the activities of which consist of or include all or any of the following activities, that is to say, the berthing, towing, moving or dry docking of a ship, the loading or unloading of goods or embarking or disembarking of passengers, or the lighterage, warehousing, sorting, sampling, weighing or handling of goods."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am proposing this Amendment with the same voice as that which I used in respect of the last one, but the operative word here is in the fourth line, the word "exclusive". It is merely to have a provision that the harbour organisation shall not have the exclusive right to carry on functions like towage, wharfage, master porterage, stevedoring and so on. It seems only natural, in a Bill of this sort, that one would not wish to give them the exclusive right, and therefore I should like that to be made clear in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not greatly care for this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, either. Incidentally, I notice that he wishes to withhold this exclusive right not only from a whole group of harbours but from any part of the group. I am not sure how significant that may be, but I noted that both were decisively included. In their Report—and I would call your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 112 and 113, in particular—the Rochdale Committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating groups of ports where that was suitable. The Report does not, in fact, recommend or propose that exclusive rights should be conferred for the type of activity which the noble Lord mentions in his Amendment, and there is certainly no suggestion that this policy should be adopted in harbour reorganisation schemes.
I do not quite know whether I am strictly in order or not, but I have been told that the Ports Council certainly do not see, in terms of desirability or otherwise, that these things should be done in this way. They attach importance to the fact that perhaps they could be so done; that is the point. But, surely

1073
every scheme will have to be considered on its merits and bearing in mind the individual circumstances of each case. In a particular case there may be a strong argument for reducing the number of interests operating in a harbour or group of harbours; and even, for some purposes, for having only one authority. But I think it would be wrong to write into the clause (which is what the noble Lord wants), a quite inflexible provision to prevent anything of the kind from happening in any circumstances at all. It may well be, in fact, that granting a right of this kind may be a useful way of promoting the efficiency for which everyone is looking.
It does not necessarily mean that things become inefficient because an authority may have exclusive rights over certain activities in a harbour. In the new docks at Lackenby, on the Tees, the loading and discharging of vessels are the exclusive responsibility of the Tees Conservancy Commission, and this system is working very well. I think Manchester is another example where it works very well; and, as one of the recommendations of the Rochdale Report was that a new independent port trust should be established for the Tees, which would involve a harbour reorganisation scheme, I think it would be a great pity to undo the work which is being done, as of course would be the position if we accepted this Amendment.
Again I would point out to the noble Lord that under the Bill there is ample opportunity for objections to be made if anyone feels aggrieved. There is the provision in Schedule 4 that, where objections are substantive ones, an inquiry should be held by the Minister before a scheme is confirmed; and if it is confirmed, it is subject to the special Parliamentary procedure, with the possibility of further objection being taken by Parliament. That again, I should have thought, ought to cover the point that the noble Lord has raised.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I read this Amendment very carefully, and frankly, I am amazed to find this Amendment appearing on the Report stage. I should have thought it was something relevant to the Committee stage of the Bill. It is, of course, a wrecking Amendment; it is nothing more nor less. First
1074
of all, when moving his previous Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that it had reference to the fact that he saw backdoor nationalisation in one section of the Bill. Now he is flogging the old liberal hobbyhorse of monopoly. I suggest to the noble Lord that when he considers many of our ports to-day, such as the Port of London Authority, or Hull, he will find that there is no monopoly whatever in the operating. There has been no attempt by the authorities to usurp power and take over every service. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said—and I want only to stress, not to reiterate—there is every possible safeguard in this Bill where the schemes must come before Parliament for ratification.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 19 [Compensation for loss of office, &c., in consequence of orders and schemes under foregoing provisions]:
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the words after "a situation, place or employment" down to and including "not more than," and insert:
"might suffer any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid and that, if he does, compensation should be paid in respect thereof, that Minister shall not make the order unless he is satisfied that it secures that there will be paid to or in respect of that person, if he suffers any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid, compensation corresponding, as near as may be, to".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, during the Committee stage raised two points on compensation at which I undertook to have another look. I had another look, a lot of careful thought and attention has been devoted to them, and it appeared that there was substance in the points the noble Lord made. Therefore I have put down this Amendment which scoops up both the points he raised in the one Amendment. What was wanted was that Clause 19 should expressly provide that the Minister should ensure that there were compensation provisions in any harbour revision or empowerment order in any case where there was any possibility that they might be appropriate.
The noble Lord's other point was to accept the fact—as I think we must—that compensation arising under Harbour Orders could be different from that under reorganisation schemes. Never

1075
theless, as far as possible compensation payable under Clause 19(1) should be the same as that payable under subsection 2. I think his wording is considerably improved and I believe it meets the points the noble Lord raised. I will not deny that its drafting has been difficult; but it has been done and I think it has been done successfully. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 34, leave out from ("employment") to ("that") in line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, first of all, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the time and trouble he has devoted to this problem since the Committee stage. I am assured that the wording will meet the point I ventured to raise then. I am glad the Minister has been able to accept the views which have been submitted to him, and, on behalf not only of myself but of the officers who may be involved, I would express appreciation and thanks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, after ("holder") insert ("in similar circumstances").—(Lord Chesham. )
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Orders for establishing schemes for control of movement of ships in harbours
20.—
(4) The provisions of a control of movement order having effect by virtue of subsection (3)(i) above shall not be so framed as to permit—

(b) on conviction on indictment of a person of such an offence or of the master of a ship by reason of such a failure or contravention, of the infliction on him of imprisonment (whether in addition to, or in substitution for, a fine) for a term exceeding six months.

4.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE) moved, in subsection 4(b) after "contravention" to insert:

"(i) of the infliction on him of imprisonment except in a case where the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully or, as the
1076
case may be, the failure or contravention was reckless or wilful; or

(ii) in the said excepted case,".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the discussion in Committee we had a useful debate on the provisions of this clause and, in particular, as to whether or not there should be liability to a sentence of imprisonment, not exceeding six months, on trial on indictment for offences constituted by a control of movement order. It is, of course, the case that only the more serious offences are tried on indictment, and under this Bill the control of movement order will define what will constitute the offences; and the order, of course, when prepared, will be subject to Parliamentary control. In Committee I expressed the view that it was right to have a liability to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months for the serious cases. I adhere to that view, for the reason that the risks which may ensue from a serious breach of a control of movement order may be considerably greater than even the risks on some of our highways to-day. Moreover, they may involve many more people and, indeed, property as well.
During that discussion, however, it became apparent that while, if I judged the sense of the Committee rightly, noble Lords were not opposed to such liability for the more serious offences, the Committee wished the generality of the provisions in the Bill, as it now stands, to be limited in some degree. I undertook to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, to consider that matter; and I should like to inform your Lordships that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has told me he very much regrets that he is unable to be present here to-day, but that he entirely agrees with the Amendment I am proposing. The effect of this Amendment will be to ensure that no person charged on indictment for an offence under a control of movement order will be liable to have a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him
"except in a case where the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully or, as the case may be, the failure or contravention was reckless or wilful;".
Your Lordships may wonder why that second phrase is there. I understand the reason is that the failure may be wilful or the contravention reckless in disregard of a direction given under the

1077
control of movement order. It has, I gather, to be drafted in that way to be satisfactory. But the effect of this Amendment will be that no one will be able to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment on trial on indictment unless it is established that the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully. I hope that the Amendment meets my undertaking on Committee stage to look at the wording, to see whether it was possible to achieve that object, and that it will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 8, after ("contravention") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor. )
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for carrying out the undertaking he gave during the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I would point out, for the purpose of the Record, that to put noncompliance, even though it may be limited to wilful default, on the same basis as infringement of the Collision Regulations is open to objection, for two reasons. First, I would say that it is creating a precedent for less enlightened countries abroad, which I maintain is very dangerous and a serious matter. Secondly, the Collision Regulations comprise a code written down in black and white, whereas situations which could arise tinder a control of movement order are capable of considerable flexibility; and it is always the unpredictable and unexpected that arises at sea.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that a control of movement order may involve the professional judgment of three people: the master of the ship, the pilot and the harbourmaster—or whoever is exercising control. Therefore there is all the difference between the rigid code of Collision Regulations and what might occur under a control of movement order. I would point out that it is easy to identify in a written code the serious consequences which could result from non-compliance by wilful default or gross recklessness; but wilful default in failing to observe a direction of movement order must depend on the nature of the direction or
1078
prohibition, as well as the circumstances in which it is given.
It would seem that Her Majesty's Government's case for retaining the imprisonment provision appears to be partly based on the fact that big ships carry such cargoes as explosives and inflammable material. During the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest that responsibility of a matter of, for example, a scupper tanker is in inverse ratio to the size of the ship and the nature of the cargo. I maintain that the reverse is the case. When an owner entrusts a very large ship to the care of a master, I certainly do not think that the fact that imprisonment is in the background will have any effect on the exercise of a master's judgment. I still maintain that this subsection ought never to have been inserted in this Bill. But I have made my point, and I do not propose to carry the matter any further.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, we on this side of the House think that the Government have gone as far as we can reasonably expect them to do to meet the criticism that was raised on both sides of the House with regard to the imprisonment clause. This clause was drafted for the express purpose of increasing safety in harbour. Nevertheless, it has been admitted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, stated—that in view of the special cargoes that are now arriving at ports (and as a new example which will be coming along very soon, I would quote methane, which will not be in very large ships) accidents involving serious danger to surrounding people are made possible. In other words, the casualties are likely to be not only on ship but also on land. There save already been some unfortunate explosions, one in the Scheldt and two others off the coast of America, at Galveston and Mobile. While regretting that the Government have thought fit to retain imprisonment of up to six month, in view of the fact that they have qualified the provision by now inserting the word "wilful", to that extent we on this side feel that the Government have gone as far as can be reasonably expected.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that we cannot take a great deal of comfort from the use of the

1079
word "wilful", which to lawyers surely means little more than "on purpose"?
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I was going to raise a very similar point, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain to us just what the significance of the word "wilful" is. If it embraces "intentionally", then the case which I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, wishes to escape is the case where a master, in the exercise of his judgment, having received an order, considers that it would be safer to disobey the order than to obey it. That would be a perfectly wilful act, though it would not be a reckless act. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain what it means.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, so far as the last point raised by the noble Viscount is concerned, he must not overlook the provisions of Clause 24. Your Lordships will see that, under that clause.
"it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he had reasonable ground for supposing that compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question, would be likely to imperil the ship or to prove that in the circumstances compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question was impracticable."
So that I do not think that the particular problem to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred is, in fact, likely to arise.
The question has been asked about the particular effect of the word "wilful". Of course, it entails a good deal more than that the court should just establish the fact that an act was intentional. It is hard to put it precisely in words. It would be for the court to determine in the circumstances of the case. But "wilful" is a word which is found in various statutory provisions and really means that the court, having regard to all the conduct as established in the evidence, would have to be satisfied that it was not only just an intentional disobeying, say, of a direction, but also a deliberate one, with perhaps some consideration of possible consequences. One is not here talking so much about what has to be proved to constitute an offence. It is only when the court is satisfied that the character of the offence established amounts to a wilful disregard of whatever
1080
it may be, or a reckless disregard of instructions, that the court will have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment. I think that this will work all right. I hope that no use will have to be made of this provision. Nevertheless, I think that it is desirable—indeed, right—that it should be in the Bill.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Teynham that, I have no doubt inadvertently, he has completely misrepresented, or not appreciated, what I said during the Committee stage. I would be the last person to suggest that the companies who owned these big vessels carrying these dangerous cargoes do not take the utmost care to appoint the most reliable masters of these vessels, nor would I suggest for one moment that the masters of these vessels do not take the greatest possible care for the safety of their ships and their cargoes. The point that I was trying to make was that a master of some big ship like this, which, after all, cannot be turned or stopped quite immediately, may easily be put into a position of considerable difficulty by a breach of some requirement of a movement control order on the part of the master of some very small vessel. He might get into a situation of emergency through the fault of some other vessel wholly unconnected with his own ship. And with so much shipping coming into our ports—and I hope that it will come in increasing quantity—it is surely right that power should be available to exercise strict discipline over those who use the ports.
That is, shortly, the argument for the Amendment. I hope that I have been able to explain it to my noble friend Lord Teynham, who, I think, has misunderstood my meaning. The last thing I was wishing to do was to cast any reflection on the masters and owners of the vessels to which he referred.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has succeeded in getting himself and the Government out of a difficulty by the skill with which he adopted the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. The proposal which the noble and learned Lord has put forward certainly represents a compromise which we welcome, but I think it was the impression of many of us on the last occasion that, if the House had

1081
divided, it would have thrown imprisonment as a penalty for this offence out of the Bill. I still think it is a pity, for the reasons that were given by noble Lords, that in this day and age imprisonment is regarded as necessary as a sanction for this type of offence. It is merely on this ground that we object to this clause, which has been criticised from both sides of the House.
On the last occasion, the noble and learned Lord said that there are much more draconian penalties in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The types of offences for which these penalties can be prescribed are clearly of a very serious kind. I still do not know—I hoped the noble and learned Lord would tell us—why the Act, particularly Section 220, should not have been reserved as an ultimate sanction for some really gross breaches of duty. I should have preferred to see, rather than "wilful contravention", something that involved wilful breach of duty. We acknowledge that the clause with the special defence greatly eases the situation, but even now I would ask the noble and learned Lord why we cannot rely, for these extreme offences, on the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and not put this sort of penalty into a piece of modern legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that I can sneak again only with the leave of your Lordships. I can put the answer quite shortly. There may be some offences committed under the movement control order, which, of course, your Lordships will be able to see, do not constitute offences either under the Merchant Shipping Act or under the Collision Regulations. I thought that I had dealt with that last time. You could have conduct which is a breach of a movement control order, but is not a breach of the regulations. It may be perhaps equally dangerous.
What the noble Lord is really suggesting is that there should be an increased penalty, bigger than is proposed in the Bill—namely, a liability to two years' imprisonment. I am not in favour of that. I think this sanction of imprisonment must be kept as a last resort, but it is necessary to have it here. As I have said, the occasion for its use may never arise, and one would hope that it would seldom arise. As I
1082
said on the Committee stage, one could have perhaps adapted the penalty provisions of the Collision Regulations to movement control orders, but that would bring a liability to two years' imprisonment, and then under the present regulations it is a liability if there is a wilful breach—I think the word "wilful" is in there. I do not think I should take up your Lordships' time further on this, but I am willing to clear the noble Lord's mind on this point in any private discussion he may care to have.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I still think the noble and learned Lord has not appreciated the difference between these two. I am not referring—nor was I on the last occasion—to the Collision Regulations. I am referring to Section 220, where the words are "wilful breach of duty". This is not intended to extend and bring into this field the two-year offence, but to make it even more stringent and more difficult to bring such a case. This would be in only the grossest kind of case, much grosser than is provided for in the new clause. I will not press this further, except to say that I do not think the noble and learned Lord has satisfied everybody on it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Provisions supplementary to sections 31 to 33]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 are linked together and are drafting Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, we might take them together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 12, after ("or") insert ("if he").
Page 43, line 13, leave out ("the scheme") and insert ("it").
Page 44, line 4, leave out ("proposal") and insert ("proposals").
Page 44, line 16, at end insert ("if he").
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("the scheme") and insert ("it").
Page 44, line 17, after second ("the") insert ("said").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Amendments of Acts consequential on sections 26 to 37]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 39, after ("passengers") insert ("on any railway").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Provisions as to inquiries and hearings]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 55, line 2, leave out ("the Minister") and insert ("him").
Page 55, line 24, leave out ("the Minister") and insert ("him").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Provisions as to ecclesiastical property]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 44, after ("Minister") insert ("or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Objects for whose achievement harbour revision orders may be made]:
LORD REA LORD REA moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out sub-paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: My Lords, by Clause 25 harbour authorities are given a certain discretion as to the charges they can make. It is therefore possible, I think, to envisage a state of affairs whereby under paragraph 3(c) of the Schedule (which I am moving to delete) those who are carrying out any ancillary duties at harbours might have their charges controlled by a harbour authority which would itself have freedom in levying charges. I think it will be a hardship on people who are trying to make contracts ahead and looking well forward if they do not know how they are going to be affected by the harbour authority's suddenly descending on them and telling them what charges they are to make. This seems to be wrong, particularly as the harbour authority might be competing in the services offered; and there is no provision in the Bill which would prevent them from acquiring a monopoly—which
1084
I am surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, seems to welcome as not a bad thing. Therefore, I suggest that paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 2 ought to be deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, leave out lines 24 to 26.—(Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have never quite known what is the opposite of the expression of taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut, but the noble Lord has here produced a nut in an endeavour to destroy the sledge hammer, if that is possible, because the part he wants to leave out is, I think, a very necessary provision to leave in, in that it covers a great many further and wider things than this, again, rather illusory problem which the noble Lord has put to us. The object of this paragraph is that a harbour authority may operate or abolish their existing power to regulate the conditions on which other people provide port facilities in their harbour. That is a power that exists in many cases at present in port Statutes, and I am certain that it would greatly limit the use of harbour revision powers if an authority were not able to vary their existing powers in these matters or to impose new ones—because the noble Lord's Amendment has a consequential effect upon new powers as well as existing ones.
The Rochdale Committee thought that there should be some increased regulation, and pointed out, as I have just done, that it was not unusual for port authorities to exercise some control over such private employment through their statutory powers. It would very much cut across the intention of the Bill if we were to accept the Amendment, because the real intention of the Bill is to provide a quicker and cheaper method of taking powers than is provided by the Private Bill procedure. That is really what all this is about. On that account, therefore, the noble Lord's suggestion would in any case be ineffective. All it would mean is that authorities would not be able to use this procedure, and would continue, if they so wished, to go through the much more cumbersome process of promoting a Private Bill and arriving at exactly the same place. That is why I say the Amendment cuts across the intention of

1085
the Bill, and I think it would be a pity to accept it. For the third time, I must point out to the noble Lord that there is provision for objections to be heard, including a Special Praliamentary Procedure, so that if anyone is aggrieved to that extent his grievance can be drawn to the attention of Parliament.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think there is certain force in what the noble Lord says, but the last few words here refer to activities on harbour land. It might well be that there is a warehouse, factory or even a shipbuilding centre on harbour land which has nothing much to do with the harbour authority. It would seem wrong that the authority should be given power to interfere with any businesses which were not part of their own activities.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am glad to have the chance to reassure the noble Lord on this matter. The definition of harbour land is in Clause 57, and activities there carried on, as it says, refers to "activities for the purposes of the harbour". It does not extend to other activities carried on near a harbour, such as sugar refining, grain milling, warehousing or operations of that kind. Therefore the noble Lord can really sleep easy on that one.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the whole House is most interested in this sudden burst of Liberal initiative. Since the noble Lord has other Amendments down (I hope he will not bother to move the next one) I think we should be interested to know what has given cause for concern at this late stage of the Bill, when so much has been put into the Bill to protect the interests of parties who might be concerned. I think he ought to tell us why he is moving this Amendment. I really do not understand it. I hope he will not move the next Amendment. I am getting tired, and I think the Minister is, too, of giving and hearing the same explanation, time after time.
LORD REA: My Lords, in view of the Minister's explanation, but unaffected by the remarks of the noble Lord on my left, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD REA LORD REA moved to leave out paragraph 17. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know I am on a sticky wicket this afternoon, but it seems to me that here we have quite a big Bill, with many things which are allowed, and many which are not allowed. Paragraph 17, which I should like to see deleted, virtually says, "and anything else we have not thought of can be done". I will leave it at that, and hope your Lordships will say that that is not a paragraph that ought to go into a Bill—that any object may be included which, although not falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs, appears to be appropriate to the Minister. No doubt some Ministers would find some things appropriate and others would not. I do not think we should give such a carte blanche to any Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 41, leave out paragraph 17.— (Lord Rea.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, for my part I would certainly regard it as much more undesirable to take it out of the Bill. I will not repeat my explanation—the argument is very much the same—but we are trying to make things rather easier and simpler and more efficient and slicker. It is obviously quite impossible that we should write into the Bill all the possible reasons that might be required. There are some 300 harbour authorities in the country, and to attempt to anticipate all the possible requirements, including some which may only arise in the future, without a sort of sweeping up paragraph at the end, I think would be rather silly, because the Bill would then become extremely restrictive and would tend to defeat itself. Having said that, and with one fourth and final reference to safeguards to objections built into the Bill, both before and after an Order, the Special Parliamentary Procedure, and so on, I hope the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule 3 [Procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 38, leave out from ("which") to end of line 39 and insert ("their execution is proposed to be authorised or, as the case may be, of the land whose compulsory acquisition is proposed to be authorised").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 30, leave out ("pier, wharf, quay") and insert ("wharf, quay, pier").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether this Amendment has any other purpose except that of confronting the Deputy Speaker with a tongue-twister?
LORD CHESHAM: No, not really, my Lords.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 23, after ("writing") insert ("(stating the grounds of his objection)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Loan CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 39, leave out ("he") and insert ("the person served").—(Lord Chesham. )
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Submission and confirmation of harbour reorganisation schemes]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment and the next are both drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 84, line 10, leave out ("are severally engaged in improving, maintaining or managing") and insert ("between them are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the several").
Page 84, line 26, leave out ("are severally engaged in improving, maintaining or managing") and insert ("between them are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the several").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Procedure for making control of movement orders]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 1, leave out ("to be acquired") and insert ("whose compulsory acquisition is proposed to be authorised").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments repealed]:
Loan CHESHAM: My Lords, this last Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 15, leave out ("Boards") and insert ("Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN DRUNKEN DRIVING CASES
4.56 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would agree with the proposition that in cases brought under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, as amended by the Act of 1962, relating to driving or being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs, it is not essential for medical evidence to be called in order to prefer a charge or obtain a conviction; or whether they consider that the law requires amendment in this regard. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name upon the Order Paper. I would tell your Lordships quite frankly that the reason why I have put it on the Order Paper is that I, in concert with all your Lordships, take the view that the good and respected relations between public and police are a first essential to the proper enforcement of the law. I borrow the term "respected" from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who said during the debate upon the Police Bill that, while the police could never be loved, they at least should be respected. In fact that was in all your Lordships' minds, and was running right through the debate on the Police Bill.
Your Lordships will all agree, I know, that the task confronting the police is

1089
getting more difficult every day, especially when it comes to the proper enforcement of the traffic laws. I am apprehensive that recent happenings in some of the courts, many in the Metropolitan area, are damaging to that image which I think is so essential. The police have been severely criticised, in my view quite wrongly, for carrying out a duty imposed upon them by Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, as amended by Section 1 of the Act of 1962. To show the disapproval that the benches have felt for the actions of the police, they have been awarding substantial costs against the police—because they could be awarded against nobody else—and these costs have to be paid out of public funds.
I will not weary your Lordships by a dissertation upon the evils of drunken driving: you do not want to be reminded about that. Your Lordships had that theme right in front of you when you discussed the provisions in the Road Traffic Act which, incidentally, went through your Lordships' House twice. On the first occasion it had to be abandoned because of an Election, and the second time we had all the arguments all over again. Both your Lordships' House and another place spent many days grappling with the problem of how we could more successfully overcome this great social evil of drunken driving, and eventually both Houses approved unanimously the Amendment that is now in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962.
By the courtesy of The Times and the Daily Telegraph—because reports of quarter sessions are not subject to the meticulous scrutiny of the Times Law Reports—I have here in my hand all the Press cuttings of all the cases that have been reported in their respective newspapers. I do not intend to weary your Lordships by reading them, as most of you have already done so, but I can tell your Lordships this: that, according to those reports, in not one of those cases, whether from the benches, the Bar or the medical profession, was the existing law quoted accurately. The only people who presented the case as it was intended by Parliament that it should be presented were the police.
The law on this matter is simple to state and I will quote it. This is what
1090
Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, says:
"For the purposes of section six of the principal Act (which imposes penalties for driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs) a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired."
The test is the ability to drive properly; and the ability to drive properly at the moment of time when the person charged was driving or about to drive—not an hour, two hours or three hours afterwards, when he was being medically examined as to his fitness to drive. It is essential that that should be understood.
Further, there is no Statute which says that the fiat of a doctor is necessary before the police may bring a charge or sustain a charge or a court can convict—not one. In point of fact, I would suggest that the only real value of the testimony of a medical practitioner is when he is an eye-witness to the accident or an eye-witness when the driver was stopped by the police, or if he is prepared to give an opinion as to whether the accused was not driving properly at some time previously owing to the influence of drink or drugs.
The Act puts the responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of the police as to whether they shall prefer a charge, and of producing the necessary evidence which they think fit to produce. As the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Middlesex Sessions, Lord Dunboyne, was reported by The Times of April 7 to have said—and I think he was the only one who talked any sense on this point:
"If police decided whether to charge people with driving under the influence of drink mainly on the advice of a doctor it would amount to trial by doctor."
That, I think, is quite outside the province laid down in the decision of Parliament. All this was done by deliberate intent by the Government and was agreed to by Parliament. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will bring out that point and will refresh your memories as to the exact statements made by Government spokesmen when this Act was a Bill going through your Lordships' House. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said in his Second Reading speech when he

1091
presented the Bill first of all to your Lordships [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230, col. 346]:
"Under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road when
under the influence of drink … to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle.'
Magistrates convicted in 93 per cent. of the prosecutions brought under this section during 1958. The corresponding proportion of convictions secured from juries was 55 per cent. It may well be that the words:
'incapable of having proper control'
bring to many people's minds the idea of 'drunk and incapable', which goes much further than is necessary for someone's ability to drive properly to be adversely affected. It seems to be one of the shortcomings of the present position that this definition laid down in Section 6 is not effective, and therefore we have tried to make it effective. The new Clause 1 refers to ability to drive properly being ' for the time being impaired' due to alcohol. This is likely to bite on someone in cases where the interpretation which is often at present given to the law would not bite on them. That, my Lords, is exactly what we intend."
There is no equivocation about that, and what the noble Lord was saying was that it was the Government's intention to gather under this new definition what I would call, colloquially, the "fringe drunken driver."
On the Committee stage, when the Bill was first in your Lordships' House, the then noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, Lord President of the Council, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 230, col. 974]:
"Our view is what I believe to be the view of the overwhelming mass of people in the country, that if a man cannot, by reason of drink or drugs, drive properly, he is a danger to people if he tries to drive. There is no third class of person. There are only those two classes: those who are fit to drive and those who are not; and those who are not fit to drive should not drive."
But the then noble Viscount, when the Bill was before your Lordships on the second occasion of the Committee stage, was even more forthcoming. I will not read all he said, but he went on to ask the reason why it all broke down and the reason why we could not make any inroads into this problem. He repeated, in the language which your Lordships know so well, precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham,
1092
said on Second Reading, except that he added this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 235, col. 1047]:
"It is for this reason that the new phraseology is introduced into Clause 1 of the Bill: that a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired. This does not mean … that his driving is impaired. The word which governs the sentence is 'properly'; if his ability to drive properly is impaired. If he continues to be able to drive properly, the fact that he is not able to drive perfectly is immaterial. But if, in fact, by reason of drink or drugs, his ability to drive properly is impaired, the view of the Government is that he is committing an offence."
You could not have anything more plain than that. That is the law which the Government intended to be in force.
I say this with the greatest possible respect: those who are administering the law have to administer the law as it is laid down by Parliament, not a law which they would like to see laid down, not a law which they wish could be laid down. And they ought to be fully alive to the wishes and the intentions of Parliament. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice has said quite publicly that the courts, right from the High Court to the quarter sessions courts and the magistrates' courts, have a duty to pay due regard to the expressed intentions of Parliament.
I say this, and I feel I ought to say it, because it ill becomes those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law to give tongue to such remarks as that they are sick and tired of the police bringing these cases before their courts—in other words, carrying out the duty that Parliament has instructed them to carry out—and expressing regret that they have not the power to make those responsible for carrying out those duties pay out of their own pockets the costs which it has pleased the court, mistakenly, to impose. Whose pockets do these administrators of the law think they are coming out of—the pockets of the Chief Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis?—for it is he who issues the orders. Or perhaps it is out of your Lordships' pockets—because, of course, your Lordships, Parliament hold the final responsibility for the law. I say this again quite bluntly: I think that such ill-chosen remarks and behaviour, which are quite reprehensible from administrators of the

1093
law, can do nothing but poison the relationship between the police and the public, and deserve the condemnation of any right-thinking person.
It had been my intention, when I put this Question on the Order Paper, to confine it to the Metropolitan Police District, but as soon as it had appeared I was inundated—I do not want to exaggerate; I will not say "inundated"; but, at any rate, I had a considerable number of letters expressing disapproval of the action of these benches. I made a number of inquiries, and tried to collect a few of the voices of chief constables in the provinces. I was rather staggered, because I found that they were all apprehensive: they were afraid that this disease would spread. If this goes on, they said, everybody who is charged with driving under the influence of drink, or with having his ability to drive properly impaired, will demand to go before a jury, and the number of acquittals will go up at an alarming degree. And they told me, "We are more subjected to the pressures and the persuasions of the local watch committee than is the Commissioner of Police in London, and if they have to find these silly penalties or costs out of public funds there will be more pressure."
Let the noble Lord who is to reply take heart. I was rather interested to have my attention drawn by a noble Lord to to-day's Daily Telegraph, which reports the case of a man who was charged with an offence under Section 1 of the Act of 1962. A police surgeon had not certified him as being unfit to drive, but the man's counsel said, "The doctor did not find against my client, but we are practising law here, not medicine, and he is guilty of this offence". The defendant was fined £30 and disqualified for two years. So sense does seep in somewhere. But all the time I would impress upon the noble Lord that this is the mistake; that the 1962 Act has not sunk in. Repeatedly we hear that the man was not unfit to drive. But that is not the criterion.
I think the foolishness of the confusion is best exampled by a case that was tried at Oxford Quarter Sessions only last Thursday. Let me give your Lordships these few details, because it
1094
illustrates the trouble so well. A man was summoned for being unfit to drive through being under the influence of drink, and these were the undisputed facts. He was in collision with a taxicab and did not stop. The police found his car a little while afterwards, with its back wheels in the ditch and the front wheel outside the ditch. When the doctor finished examining him, one and a half hours afterwards, the doctor said that he was then not unfit to drive. The report of the West Midlands Forensic Science Laboratory examination said that the test showed that this man had a minimum of 4¼ pints of beer in his inside, and he gaily admitted that he had drunk 4 pints of beer. The jury acquitted him. He drives across a crossroads; he is in collision with a motor car; he ends up in a ditch. But, because of one doctor, he is said to be quite fit to drive properly.
May I come now to the last part of my Question: do the Government consider that the law requires amendment? There may be a great many answers to that. I can quite see the arguments that could be used, the arguments used in this House about the Scandinavian system: to take the whole thing out of opinion and say, "If a man has a certain content of alcohol in his blood, without any argument, without going before any court at all, he is guilty". That is one argument. There is the other one that I put up some two or three years ago: that we should take the decision out of the jury's hands; that we should alter the law so that a man who is charged with being drunk in charge of a car—I use the colloquial expression—should not have a right to go to a jury. That would have meant altering the law, because under any Statute which provides a penalty of over three months' imprisonment for any offence a person has a right to go before a jury. If the maximum were three months, he would not have the right; over the three months there is the right. The Government could not see their way clear to do that. I quite appreciate the reasons why. Parliament could not make up its mind last time, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will give an Answer this afternoon which will clarify the Government's view until Parliament has made up its mind.
Do the Government hold to-day the same view as was so forcefully and logically expressed by the Government of 1961?—because we could not have anything more plain than that. Do they support the police? I understand that they support the Metropolitan Police—I only understand that, but I hope it is true. It is only by having this wider public image that this problem will be recognised. On the Second Reading of the Police Bill, the noble Lord put his finger on the spot when he said that things like this only exaggerate and extend uninformed, ignorant public pressure. We must preserve the dignity of the police. They are carrying out our instructions, and they deserve our defence.
5.22 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I want to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. I want to speak from the medical point of view, but I am not representing any particular body of doctors; I think I am speaking on behalf of the whole medical profession in what I say. The noble Lord said that he did not want to speak about the evils of drunken driving. I want to say that, unfortunately, it is part of the duty of the medical profession to look after the results of the evils of drunken driving, in the shape of the maimed and cruelly injured people who suffer as a result of these wicked accidents.
Far more people suffer, are terribly maimed or are killed as a result of drunken driving than are murdered or are victims of crimes of violence or of any of the conventional types of crime. Many road accidents result in the most horrible type of cerebral injury from which a person is converted into a vegetable for the rest of his existence. These ghastly, tragic cases are caused because people are selfish, thoughtless, callous and drink too much, and then take a lethal weapon on the road. I think that this is a foul and filthy crime. But they are getting away with it.
The role of the medical profession here is quite misunderstood by certain courts. Medical assessment of drunkenness is extremely insensitive; it is a rough, clinical judgment only—little better, if at all, than that of a police
1096
officer. What the doctor does when he examines a person who is alleged to be drunk is to try to determine whether that person is suffering from something else which may have produced a picture of drunkenness. The commonest thing he is looking for is a cerebral catastrophe; that is to say, a hæmorrhage or thrombosis within the brain: the person feels ill, takes a drink, and then falls over and is picked up by the police and thought to be drunk because he smells of alcohol. This, of course, can occur, although but rarely. But in a car accident, much more commonly the person has taken some alcohol and has sustained a head injury as a result of the car accident. Then a difficult and delicate medical problem may arise, although by no means an insoluble one.
The third thing the doctor is looking for is something like epilepsy. The fourth thing is the most unlikely possibility of drugs. The fifth thing is hyperglycæmia; that is, a lowering of the blood sugar as a result of an overdose of insulin, or a proper dose of insulin without a meal. I will say a word or two about this in a moment, because this is the latest defence which is being put up on behalf of these people, quite wrongly. Those are the things that the doctor looks for when he is confronted with a drunken, or a supposedly drunken, person at a police station. His opinion on how drunk this man is is of little significance. His opinion of the person's capacity to drive a car properly, his judgment whether his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired, is, I would say, of no consequence unless the fellow is so drunk that it is obvious to all. It is his performance as a driver that matters, and that is that.
There are three stages in alcoholism. The first stage is excitement, loss of inhibitions—what we all feel at a cocktail party. And I venture to say that most of us ought not to drive after we have been to a cocktail party unless we have confined ourselves to two small whiskies or their equivalent. That is the most we should allow ourselves to drive on. The next stage is confusion, when speech begins to be slurred and there is blurring of vision. Here the doctor applies certain rather ridiculous tests. He asks the patient to say "British Constitution", and if he says

1097
"Brishish Coshisushun" then he is considered to be suffering from the second stage. The third stage is stupor, which is manifest and obvious. But it is in stupor that the mistakes can occur, because stupor can be produced by things besides alcohol. It is here that a medical opinion is important. But it will not arise in this sort of case because the person will be flat out.
I want to say one word about blood alcohol because it shows precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was talking about when he mentioned that this is not merely a Metropolitan phenomenon. As I shall show in a moment, it is a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs. The blood alcohol is the only accurate measure of the effect of alcohol on a person's brain. The amount of drink the person has consumed does not matter so very much, because the speed of absorption of the alcohol varies. The speed of absorption from the stomach varies depending on a number of factors: whether the alcohol is iced or warm—it is speeded up if it is warm; whether it is diluted or not; whether the person has taken a meal, which slows up absorption; and also whether the person has got chronic gastritis as a result of being a chronic taker of alcohol, in which case the speed of absorption is slowed up.
What matters is the amount of alcohol in his blood. This determines the way the person's brain behaves, and consequently the way in which he drives. There is no difficulty about finding out the amount in the fellow's blood. It is perfectly easily done, and usually done, by finding out how much there is in the urine. The ratio of the alcohol in the urine to the alcohol in the blood is approximately 4 to 3; so it is easy to determine. It is possible to express the amount of alcohol in the blood as a percentage; but this is a bad thing to do because it involves decimal points and noughts, which lead to mistakes and confusion even in the best circumstances. It is far better expressed as milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres (which is the same as c.cs.) of blood.
If the blood alcohol is above 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres, that person's driving capacity is very slightly but
1098
definitely impaired. The absolute minimum amount of alcohol required to reach 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres is 2 pints of beer or 2 double whiskies. You cannot get above 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres without taking that amount, and you probably would have to take a good deal more because the test figures have been done on volunteers who take absolute alcohol, which is rather unpleasant, and have blood estimates done afterwards. With non-absolute alcohol in the form of conventional drinks considerably more than this is required. If the blood alcohol is above 100 milligrams per 100 millilitres, it is absolutely certain that the driving will be impaired. If it is above 150, the person will be manifestly and grossly drunk.
Yet in the North-East not long ago an analysis was made by the staff of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Newcastle, which was published in the British Journal of Addiction in January, 1963. They analysed 286 cases brought before the courts of people accused of driving while impaired by alcohol. The average blood alcohol for those convicted was 220 milligrams per 100 millilitres—and I have just explained to your Lordships that at a figure of 150 the person is grossly and most obviously drunk, and at 100 he is definitely and firmly impaired. The average for those acquitted was 180 milligrams per 100 millilitres. This is absolutely monstrous. What is happening is that counsel in the courts cross-examine the police witnesses as to the equivalent of blood alcohol in terms of pints and quarts of beer which the person has drunk. The police are forced to give the only known equivalents, as I have tried to give them to your Lordships, and the jury say, "Well, he had only taken seven pints of ordinary beer". That is the way so-called justice is administered.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw the I.T.V. programme just before Christmas, when an I.T.V. interviewer went to a public house in North London and interviewed a series of people coming out, getting into their cars and driving away. It was the most disgusting piece of self-deception by these potential murderers. They were just saying, "I've only had 7 pints; I am perfectly safe. I've only got to

1099
drive 17 miles in my Jag". It is a monstrous disgrace to humanity that this should go on, and we have got to stop it. The first way in which we must stop it is by administering the existing law, and we must make sure that we give the police every conceivable backing in doing this unpleasant job. Do not let us suppose that we doctors can help the police a great deal here. We can only exclude the other causes which simulate alcoholism. We cannot, if we are honest, say what is the degree of impairment of a person's driving when we are called in three-quarters of an hour or an hour after the time at which the defendant was first seen.
The police have had the greatest difficulty in getting doctors to do this work. When the National Health Service Act came in they stopped having police surgeons. The police surgeons were there primarily to look after the police force, and with all the police force then being covered by the National Health Service there was no case for the police surgeons to be kept on. It was found that no doctors were ready to do police work, for it is an unpleasant, disgusting sort of work and always occurs at bank holidays and at periods of that kind. So most areas have police surgeons again, but not, I am sorry to say, all areas. The doctor is paid a small retaining fee, something like 50 guineas a year, to be a police surgeon, and he has to make arrangements to be on call and to cover himself for ordinary emergencies during the period when he is called out on police work. I do not think that it is an excessive retaining fee, but, even so, some forces object to paying it. The police surgeon has to hold himself available to see these people at the police station so as to exclude the possibility of injury, disease or drugs.
I mentioned diabetes and the latest defence, which is hyperglycæmia. If a diabetic takes his insulin and forgets to take his sugar, his blood sugar goes right down and he starts to behave as though drunk. This is a genuine risk which all diabetics run, and all diabetics are told to carry a couple of lumps of sugar with them which they can take if
1100
necessary. Some clever Smart Alecks have started taking the blood sugars of people who are coming round from an alcoholic intoxication, and finding low blood sugars have said, "Although this patient is not a diabetic, nevertheless he is suffering from hyperglycæmia and this was the cause of his alleged alcoholic behaviour". This is complete rubbish. It is well known that the taking of alcohol first raises the blood sugar and then depresses it. So if one takes an analysis of the blood sugar in a normal individual who has taken alcohol, after an hour or so the blood sugar will be found to be low. This defence is seen for what it is—completely phoney.
A lot of fuss has been made over the right of a patient to call for his own doctor or another doctor besides the police doctor. Your Lordships will have read in the newspapers that the police have suggested that police surgeons should not necessarily tell the patient that he has this right, because the police had the duty of informing the person of this right. This has now all been ironed out. The police are happy that the police surgeon should repeat what they have said. All it amounts to is that they shall let the patient try to get another doctor, if he can. Of course, he is not really a patient, but is, I suppose, a self-indulgent sot. That is why he is not covered by National Health Service treatment from his own doctor. He has the greatest difficulty in finding a doctor to come and see him, and his own doctor, having refused to come (quite rightly in my opinion) they have to ring round and try to find an independent doctor. What a waste of human energy!
The police do not necessarily call the police surgeon in the court of law, and there is no reason whatever why they should do so. If the person is ill he will not be charged; that is all there is to it. And that is all the police surgeon can tell them: either that he was ill or that he was not well. The rest is up to the police and up to the ordinary human behaviour. plus the blood or urine alcohol. That is all I have to say. My sympathies in this matter are absolutely 100 per cent. with the police, and the way the law is at present being administered in certain courts is such that we lean over backward to protect drunken drivers.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to say just one word. While I entirely agree with what has been said by both noble Lords, there is, to my mind, one difficulty; and that is the fact that one can drive very improperly without having taken any drink or drugs whatsoever, or without suffering from any disease. 'There is plenty of very improper driving on the roads today. Some people have never been able to drive properly, owing to the fact that they have been taught badly. Others are unwilling to drive properly, owing to the fact that they have no consideration for others, and have never learnt the meaning of good manners. Therefore, if what we want to eliminate is improper driving, or driving that causes danger to others, I cannot see why we should place more emphasis on drunken driving than on these other forms of bad driving.
5.42 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat will forgive my saying that he is really quite off the point. There are a number of crimes with which the sort of driver he has been describing can be charged, and is from time to time charged, in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is dealing with a specific point which has been very much before the public in recent months; and very properly so. Anybody who, like myself, has to try these cases at quarter sessions continually, has had only too much experience of the type of case which the noble Lord has described. Certainly in the court where I preside I would say that on five occasions out of six the man who pleads "not guilty" is found not guilty by the jury, when I think the bench are unanimously of the opinion that the jury has made a mistake. This, undoubtedly, is a very serious situation, but I cannot sec that it will be improved by the innuendo in the noble Lord's Question, which, as I understand it, is that doctors should not be called to give evidence in these cases.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No. Will the noble Lord forgive me? I used the word "essential". It is not essential that they should be called. It is a matter for the discretion of the police.
LORD CHORLEY: As a matter of strict law, of course, that is so; but it would, in my submission, be a very serious mistake if doctors were not normally called in in this sort of case. It is one of the basic principles of the administration of criminal law in this country that all the available evidence, whether it is for the prosecution or for the defence, should be put before a jury by the prosecution. The prosecutor is not a persecutor in that sense of the term: he is a minister of justice, there to have an impartial investigation made. It is true that he has to put the case for the prosecution, in the first instance; but in an English criminal trial all available witnesses are called by the prosecution, even if the burden of their evidence is in favour of the defendant. That, I think, is one of the distinguishing marks of the administration of criminal law in this country.
We had this point out in this House only a few weeks ago, in connection with the Bill for giving the defence the last word before the case is decided by the jury. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the police got into the habit of not calling a doctor because they knew that the doctor was going to give evidence which might favour the defendant in this sort of case. After all, all these people are not, in fact, guilty.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, this is exactly the dilemma that we doctors are in. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, appears to think that we have some evidence to give him. We have none. We have no knowledge of the degree of impairment at the time. This is precisely the difficulty we are in.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, the doctor frequently has the most valuable evidence to give to the court. I sit and try these cases, and I know what I am talking about. The doctor's evidence is often of very great value indeed. A man may be brought in, and within a few minutes, in a good case, the doctor is putting him through the tests. These tests show very clearly whether or not the man was capable of driving properly.
LORD TAYLOR: Indeed they do not.
LORD CHORLEY: The law is that they do.
LORD TAYLOR: The law is not that they do.
LORD CHORLEY: We are administering the law and not doing what the medical profession tells us is right. The doctor's evidence is accepted by the courts, who are, after all, the judges of the administration of the law of the land, as being relevant evidence. That is the point. It would be very wrong if the police were to get into the habit of saying, "We are not going to call a doctor in this particular case", because the doctor's evidence is, in fact, relevant to a decision by the jury, and by it they have to pass judgment. I think it would be very wrong if it became the accepted view of the police that these doctors should not be called.
In some cases, of course, it may be that the doctor's evidence is largely irrelevant, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, in some of these cases there may be two or three hours' delay before he sees the man. I had a case only the other day where a man was taken in by the police and it was a long time—an hour and a half, I think—before they got the doctor there. Then the doctor spent about an hour asking him questions about what he had been doing during the day (and this, in my submission, is a mistake which the doctors very frequently make), instead of putting him through the tests at once; examining his eyes and his speech; seeing to his co-ordination of his muscular movements, and that sort of thing.
Such tests should be done as near as possible to the time on which the charge is based, the time when it is alleged that the man was not properly capable of driving the car. But doctors sometimes postpone the physical tests, which are so important, to have a rather long cross-examination in which the man is asked what he was doing during the day. In the case I am thinking about it was not until another hour had elapsed, making two and a half hours altogether, from the time when the man was arrested by the police, that the doctor began to administer these tests. By that time, of course, the man was quite capable of walking along a line and doing many of the other tests which the doctor put to him. I am sure that the noble Lord has a good case on this
1104
point; that very frequently by the time the doctor administers the test, the man is once more capable of driving a car, and juries naturally attach very great importance to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has referred to the defence to these cases. I will not say it is unscrupulously carried through, because it is the job of counsel for the defence to put the case strongly on behalf of his client. But in this sort of case the defending counsel is at a very considerable advantage, because the sympathies of the jury, as we all know, are very often engaged on the side of the defendant. With that advantage, a skilful defending counsel, who has obtained from the doctor a statement that the man has walked along the line quite correctly, that he has picked up a pencil from the floor, and that he has touched his toes without making a mistake, is in a position to address a strong argument to the jury. The result is that in five cases out of six a man who, in the view of the magistrates who are sitting on the bench, ought to have been convicted, obtains a verdict of not guilty. Then, of course, counsel asks for his costs—which is the crowning insult. Actually, in my own court we do not give him costs in a case of this sort; but other courts take a different view and think that, if the jury has found a defendant not guilty, he ought to have his costs, however satisfied the bench themselves may be that that decision was a mistaken one. But the main point—I am afraid that here I cannot agree with the noble Lord—is that in these cases the evidence should, in my view, be called before the court.
We shall probably be driven, in the end, into adopting in this country the Scandinavian system. I should have preferred to support a Bill introduced to do that, because the present situation really is very serious. While I do not agree with some of the things that my noble friend Lord Taylor has said, substantially I entirely agree with him that this is a disgusting and vicious type of crime and the community will very shortly have to take effective steps to deal with it.
5.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but, in view of the remarks which have been made by

1105
my noble friend Lord Chorley, which I think indicate the difficulty of the bench and of the general public, I think I should remind him that in the words he used he referred to being "incapable of driving". Surely, that is not the issue so far as the 1962 Act is concerned. The word in the Act, which I believe my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth read two or three times, was "impaired". There are many people—and one can see them among one's own friends—who go out in the evenings perhaps to cocktail parties, who are certainly not of a vicious character, and who are perfectly capable of driving their cars home in reasonable circumstances, but could well be impaired in driving if an emergency arose. And that is the issue.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of driving a car properly.
LORD SHEPHERD: Properly, when an emergency arises. I think one of the greatest difficulties for the public is to determine the amount of alcohol they can take without impairing their ability to drive a car.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Taylor who referred to "potential murderers". I do not think that the large number of people who go into public houses on a Sunday afternoon, who perhaps fall into happy company and have more than they originally intended, are potential murderers. They are potential killers. They are killers without appreciating that fact. All of us must have heard somebody say, "I can take three large whiskies and am perfectly able to drive the car"; or even some who may say, "I can drinks six large whiskies and still drive my car home". It may well be that, on a certain day, that individual could drink six large whiskies and get his car home, and perhaps not be a tremendous menace on the road; but there may be another day when he is tired, when he may have had a day of strain in his office, and when six large whiskies put him into a quite different category without his being aware that he has entered that category.
No word has been said this evening on the effect of drugs together with alcohol. The other day I saw the effect of alcohol on a stimulant. The person had had only one small brandy, but the effect of one small brandy on one of the
1106
stimulant drugs was that the person was very close to being considered slightly inebriated. Such people are a considerable menace to themselves. But do the general public really understand the effect of a combination of drink and drugs? I doubt it. I think the public would be helped very considerably in this matter if it were laid down that, if a person had consumed more than a certain quantity of alcohol, then by law he would be considered to have taken sufficient to impair his driving ability—not his capability to drive, but his ability to drive properly.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will my noble friend permit me to interrupt? That is, as judged by the blood alcohol.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly, by the blood alcohol. This would certainly help the courts. The courts would then make a decision, not on whether the man was capable of driving or not, but on whether, within the ruling that had been laid down by Parliament, he had consumed more than the limit. If he had, then, so far as the courts were concerned in administering the law, the man would be guilty; there would be no question of doubt in it.
I think it would do something more. If it were recognised in this country, as it is in Scandinavia and in Switzerland, that if you had consumed more alcohol than a certain limit you drove at your peril, then there would be no doubt about it. There is no difficulty, as I understand it from the medical profession and from the police, in gauging accurately from the urine and from the blood how much alcohol has been consumed: it is assessable. My Lords, apart from making the work of the courts easier, and administering justice throughout the country on the same level, I believe that if the public were to appreciate and understand that there was a certain limit up to which they could drink and drive and that beyond it they would drive at their peril, a great deal of drinking before driving would stop.
5.56 p.m.
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I did not intend to intervene in this debate. I would not object to the suggestion that he has made with regard

1107
to the amount of alcohol taken by a driver; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as to the difficulties of the present position. After all is said and done, whether it be a magistrate or whether it be a chairman of quarter sessions with a jury, they have to be guided by the evidence which is put before them.
I should like to take the case of a man, brought before a magistrate, accused of being unable to drive properly as the result of having taken drink or drugs. A doctor is called by the police, and the doctor says, "At the time I examined him I could not say that his ability to drive was impaired". The only other witness is the policeman who arrested him. He gives his evidence, and it becomes a question of the evidence of the policeman against the evidence of the man himself. The magistrate is at once placed in a difficulty. He has no medical evidence to help him as to the condition of the man at the time he was arrested, because sometimes the examination by the doctor is carried out a long time after the arrest has occurred. He has, on the one side, the testimony of the driver himself, who claims that he was not unfit properly to drive his car, and, on the other, the evidence of the policeman, who says, "Well, I arrested him because in my view he was unfit properly to drive his car as the result of drink or drugs". What is the magistrate to do? The doctor's evidence does not help him.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I tell the noble Lord what the magistrate is to do?
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: May I just finish? The doctor has not, of course, said, "He was not incapable of properly driving his car at the time I examined him, but he may have been incapable at the time he was arrested. But I cannot say that; I am not able to do it." The magistrate is therefore deprived of valuable evidence by the doctor, and is faced with the prospect of choosing between the story that the man has told and the story that the policeman has told. If there were two policemen, the position would be different: it would be two to one. But that does not always happen.
I think we have to bear in mind the feelings of juries or of a magistrate
1108
in the circumstances that I have outlined, when they are placed in the position of deciding whether a man is guilty or not guilty of what, after all, is a very serious offence indeed. I think that the only proper remedy for this position is possibly that which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has suggested, involving some test of the amount of alcohol taken; and that, of course, would have to be subject to proof.
6.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for raising this matter and to the other noble Lords who have spoken. I can assure them that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will note carefully what they have said, and I should say straight away that the Government agree with the first proposition contained in the Question and, in consequence, do not consider that the law requires amendment in this regard. I hope that when I have said what I am going to say the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and other noble Lords will agree with that view.
I am afraid that I shall have to cover some of the points that have been already mentioned, because I do not want to gloss over anything. I want the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to be quite clear in this matter. But I shall confine myself to the Question which is on the Order Paper, and to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth; because the debate has ranged very widely, going outside the Question on the Order Paper, and I think I should be taking too long if I did anything but that. But I will cover most of the points raised.
I think that the law in this matter is clear. It is an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road if one's ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired because one has taken alcohol or drugs. There is no restriction on the evidence that may be presented by the prosecution to support the contention that at the material time the ability of the driver of a vehicle was impaired: and there is, equally, no requirement that any particular type of evidence must be produced. Medical evidence, particularly in drug cases, may often

1109
be very important, but the evidence which is most relevant to the material time will usually be that of the arresting officer and of any witnesses of the accused's behaviour while in his car. Other evidence may come from people who saw the accused thereafter, such as the officer at the police station who decided whether to accept a charge, and, still later, from the doctor or doctors called to examine the accused at the instance of either party.
It is the practice of the Metropolitan Police to call a doctor to ensure that the person concerned is not suffering from some illness or injury, or perhaps from the effect of drugs, which would make it necessary to remove him to hospital. During the course of the medical examination, however, the doctor will usually form an opinion about the extent to which the accused's fitness to drive was at that time impaired. This opinion is recorded and is made available to the court by the prosecution.
The only evidence the law requires the court to take into account in such cases is any evidence that may be offered about
"the proportion or quantity of alcohol or of any drug which was contained in the blood or present in the body of the accused".
This is usually based on samples of urine which the accused is asked to provide. These are subsequently subjected to scientific analysis, and the results are made available to the court. There are, therefore, at least three kinds of evidence that may be placed before the court: evidence from eye-witnesses of the accused's conduct or condition, either in the car or very shortly afterwards; evidence from chemical analysis, and the evidence given by the doctor or doctors called to see him.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who reviewed Metropolitan Police practice very carefully two years ago, took the view, which was approved by my right honourable friend who was then Home Secretary, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, that it would be right to authorise the responsible officer at the station to go ahead with charging the member of the public who had been brought in if he felt satisfied that there was a prima facie case against him; namely, that, in the
1110
terms of the Statute as it now stands, there was evidence that he was unfit to drive since his ability to drive properly was for the time being impaired. Where such evidence is available it is, in the Commissioner's view, unnecessary to wait for the subsequent arrival of a doctor before the individual who has been arrested is charged. The evidence of eye-witnesses is, of course, often later supplemented by chemical evidence provided by analysis of the urine samples given by the accused.
My Lords, may I, at the risk of re-quoting figures used by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about blood content, refer to the actual words of a Special Committee of the British Medical Association, because, apart from the figures the noble Lord gave, which I shall repeat, they are extremely interesting. This Special Committee on the relation of alcohol to road accidents, which reported in 1960 said:
"clinical examination in the absence of biochemical tests is neither sufficiently sensitive nor reliable enough to detect deterioration in driving performance of this degree"
that is, of a degree that increases appreciably the likelihood of accident.
In another part of the same report the Committee said:
"The Committee considers that a concentration of 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood while driving a motor vehicle is the highest that can be accented as entirely consistent with the safety of other road users. While there may be circumstances in which individual driving ability will not depreciate significantly by the time this level is reached, the Committee is impressed by the rapidity with which deterioration occurs at blood levels in excess of 100 mg./100 ml."
The report continues—and I am quoting the actual words used because I want these following sentences to be remembered:
"This is true even in the case of hardened drinkers and experienced drivers. The Committee cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it could be considered safe for a person to drive a motor vehicle on the public roads with an amount of alcohol in the blood greater than 150 mg./100 ml."
This statement demonstrates the importance of the chemical evidence that is placed before the court under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1962.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, for the benefit of those of us who are

1111
uninitiated in these mysteries, whether he could translate that into terms of the glass of water he has in his hand—in other words, how much liquid?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, rightly it is virtually impossible to translate this amount into so many glasses of beer or of whisky: it can only be approximated. The test can be exact and has the effect as stated; but it depends upon the circumstances and on the person's make-up.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord rather not make an approximation?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I would rather not because I want to be accurate.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, will the Minister see that the Home Office representatives in the forensic laboratories discontinue this practice; because they frequently talk of equivalents in terms of so many glasses of beer or of whisky? That is the normal evidence of some of the representatives of forensic laboratories under the noble Lord's Ministry.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the way it is given is that they are in excess of a certain amount. I think I am correct in that.
As a result of the publicity given to certain individual cases an impression may have been left that the police are bringing cases without supporting evidence and that they are wasting the court's time. This is not so. The information which my right honourable friend has received from the Commissioner of Police shows that during 1963, last year, 2,756 persons were arrested in the Metropolitan Police District for drunken driving, of whom 2,408 were so charged. In 2,058 cases the doctor considered that there was impairment of ability to drive. A total of 1,872 cases were disposed of in magistrates' courts, where 1,777, or 95 per cent., were convicted, and 498 persons were committed for trial. Of 403 disposed of at Sessions, 245 or 62 Per cent., were convicted and 158 acquitted.
My Lords, this is, as everyone agrees, a most serious matter. No one can underestimate the dangers that arise on
1112
the roads from the driving of vehicles by those whose ability to drive properly is impaired. It is essential to be fair to drivers, but, on the other hand, it is equally essential to ensure that drivers who have taken too much drink do not escape the penalty which is due under the law. My right honourable friend would not wish to dissent from the Commissioner's practice of bringing all relevant evidence before the court, and he thinks that it would be a retrograde step if the responsible officer at the station, once he was convinced by the evidence of those who had seen the driver's behaviour, did not decide to charge the individual concerned until he had a certificate from a doctor, who inevitably could not come on the scene until later.
I do not think that I wish to add anything further. The statement I have made is carefully worded, and I think that I have explained exactly what the law is, how it is operated and what is the evidence that may be brought forward. I hope that what I have said may provide the background against which this important matter can be considered. Again, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for having enabled me, by putting down this Question, to say what we think the law is.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can address the House again only with your Lordships' permission, and I ask that permission solely to thank the noble Lord very much for going to the trouble of consulting his right honourable friend and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. I can only hope that what he has said in the debate this afternoon will do some good and make some impact upon this terrible scourge.

THE PRECINCTS OF ST PAUL'S CATHEDRAL
6.12 p.m.
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will look into the possibilities of moving back the building known as Juxon House, now under construction in the front of St. Paul's Cathedral; and also give thought to methods whereby public opinion can be more effectively consulted

1113
than at present when proposals for buildings are made which affect places of national and historical interest. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so in the full knowledge that the building known as Juxon House in front of St. Paul's is well under course of construction, and that construction was not started until there had been a full inquiry, involving a great deal of thought and effort, into the whole plan around St. Paul's. But I also do so in the belief that, whatever the failings of Her Majesty's Government may be, they are not stubborn and pigheaded and will not refuse to take such action as still is open to them, if a case can be made out. And I believe that it is possible to make out a case for the reconsideration of this proposal and for action to undo the damage which has already been done and to prevent further damage being done.
I think that this matter can best be dealt with under three separate headings. First of all, we must ask ourselves once more: is the St. Paul's plan a good one, or can it be improved in any way?—as I believe it can be. Secondly, what can be done at this stage to make it better and to prevent further damage; and, thirdly, what steps can be taken in order to prevent troubles of this sort arising in future?
I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I believe that what is known as the Holford Plan is, by and large, a good plan. I am not one of those who think that it should be scrapped entirely. I certainly am not one of those who are crying for a wide vista to St. Paul's, leading from Fleet Street up Ludgate Hill, on the analogy
of St. Peter's, Rome. Whether that would be desirable or not, whether it was Sir Christopher Wren's original idea or not, is completely irrelevant, because we cannot achieve that, even if we were to wish it. I accept, in the circumstances as they are to-day, Sir William Holford's idea of having a precinct around St. Paul's and, as he put it, having views that appear suddenly from different angles. I think that this plan is the right one. Furthermore, it is a good plan that there should be a precinct around this great building, so that
1114
its beauty may be enhanced. After all, there is no point in framing a picture in such a way that the frame hides half of the picture. While accepting the concept of a frame to St. Paul's, I would suggest to your Lordships that the present frame, as it has been designed, is like making the frame of a picture so large that you can see only a portion of the picture, the rest being hidden perpetually behind the frame.
Many people have supported the present plan on the ground that it has been created by experts. I emphasise that I regard Sir William Holford as one of our leading experts in this matter. His services to town planning are as great as those of anybody in the country, if not greater. It is said that it is only the uneducated and uncultured who oppose the plan; but that is not entirely true. There are many prominent experts who, in the original stages, opposed this plan. Not only the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, but also their architectural adviser—Sir Edward Mort—gave evidence against the plan. So there are experts on the other side. But I suggest to your Lordships that it is a great mistake to be blinded by the reputation of experts, particularly in the matter of art. After all, what is art? What is a beautiful thing? It is not an absolute. It is the impression it makes on other people; and the people on whom it must make its impression are the ordinary people who see it, if it is a picture or a building; who listen to it, if it is music, and who read it, if it is a book. We all know of many instances of critics and experts who have condemned a book or a piece of music, only for them to be proved by posterity that their judgment was entirely wrong.
Some years ago a friend of mine came to my home and looked through my pictures, which I had put away during the time that my home was occupied by the Army, during and after the war. He gave us the benefit of his advice. He was, and still is, one of the greatest living authorities on art in this country. He advised me on those that were worth hanging in the public rooms and on others to be hung in some of the smaller rooms, bedrooms and bathrooms, and others he relegated, with a toss of his hand, to the attic. But some of the paintings that he relegated to the attic

1115
had been bought by my father, who was, in his day, Professor of Fine Art at the University of Cambridge and a director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, and had a reputation just as great as that of my friend, who was dismissing my father's judgment with a toss of his hand. I am not saying whether my father or my friend was right in his judgment. My point is that what is to-day considered by experts as a great work of art may well to-morrow be considered as worth nothing at all, and the day after may once more come back into its own. Therefore, I beg your Lordships not to say simply that, because one of the greatest architects and town planners of to-day has supported this plan, there is no more to be said about it, and we must accept it.
It is not on that that we should make our judgment. We should make our judgment on what the ordinary people, who see these things, and for whose pleasure and edification they are created, think about it. In the last few months, thousands of people, not only Londoners but also people all over the country and outside the country (I have letters from many here and there are many others who have received letters like this), have protested against what they consider—and what I consider—the desecration of a beautiful view. It is. I think, significant that while some of the organs of the Establishment have supported the Holford Plan, in general, one can say that those newspapers whose public are the great mass of ordinary people have unanimously, if not opposed the Plan—and many of them have opposed it—certainly not come out in support of it.
Therefore I would say that public opinion, especially when it is supported by some eminent experts and by those who are most closely connected with St. Paul's in the shape of the Dean and Chapter, should not be disregarded and cast lightly on one side, but should be given pre-eminence over the views of others, no matter how great they may be as experts. That, I hope, is sufficient to convince those whose minds are still open upon this matter that the tower of Juxon House should, if possible, be moved back so as not to interfere with the existing view.
Can this be done? Let me say at this stage that we are not discussing the complete abolition of the Plan, or even the complete removal of the building going up, but merely the moving back (I say "merely", but I accept that it is a large, difficult and expensive job) fifteen or twenty feet of the building which is at present under construction. I have made inquiries about this and, as I understand it, the position is as follows. The developers of the site are under contract with the Corporation of the City of London to carry out the whole of the Plan as it has been approved so far, and they are not at liberty, even if they so wish, to stop the building or alter it. They can only do so if the Corporation of the City of London instruct them or ask them to, or, presumably, if Her Majesty's Government take the necessary steps to see that they do so.
They, I believe, would not be unwilling to do this. They are perfectly prepared to do what they are told, and if the Corporation or the Government were to say to them: "This building must stop; it must be pulled down and moved back", they would have no objection, provided they were suitably recompensed, which is fair enough. Therefore, there are no practical difficulties in the way of doing this if the will is there. But it is essential that the developers be released from their contract, either by the Corporation of the City of London or by the Government.
I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will be brave enough to listen to the clearly expressed wishes of the people who feel so strongly about this; that they will not dig in their toes and simply say: "Because we have looked into this and made up our minds at one particular stage, there is no more that can be done about it, and we must let things be." I ask them, at least, to have an open mind. Assuming (perhaps this is too great an assumption) that the Government still have an open mind, what would the cost of this alteration be? I do not know precisely—I do not think anybody does—but I am given to understand that it would be a considerable sum of money, in the neighbourhood of £500,000. I, personally, do not believe that the taxpayer's money would be ill-spent if it were used in order to save what in effect is one of our greatest

1117
national views, which is now in danger of being spoilt.
However, I hope that this would not be necessary. I am certain that a large number of people would make small contributions towards it. And I should like to think that some of those gentlemen who have made great fortunes out of development in the City of London and elsewhere might do a great national service by putting up some or all of this money. I think it would be a very fine gesture on the part of one or more of these people—some of them have been most generous in the past in other ways—if they would come forward with an offer that, if the Government and the Corporation of the City of London agreed, they would between them, and with the help of the thousands who have protested, find this £500,000, or whatever the cost might be. They could be assured that they would earn the gratitude of very many people, some not yet born, if they did so.
I come now to the third point. How can we stop this sort of thing happening in the future? It is absolutely true that before this Plan was approved all the correct processes were gone through with the greatest meticulousness. A long time was spent preparing the plans; great and eminent people were employed to prepare them; the Minister responsible at the time took a great personal interest in the matter, and it was not just fobbed off on to some junior; the proper notice was given; pictures appeared in the newspapers, and all the rest of it. There were protests, as I have already said, including the protest of the Dean and Chapter. But at the public inquiry those protests were overruled and no further action was taken.
I would make one point here. It was stated—and I quote from The Times of March 17, 1956, when his Plan was first published in the newspapers and brought to the public attention:
"…nor is the famous view up Ludgate Hill disturbed by this new plan".
While I am sure The Times had no intention of misleading people in this matter, I believe that many people did not take the trouble to look closely at what was going on, because they took those words at their face value and thought there would be no alteration of the view up Ludgate Hill. But, as anybody knows
1118
who has been there to see it, there has been a serious alteration of the view.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I say that it depends entirely upon where you are in Ludgate Hill whether the view is obstructed by Juxon House or not. From the bottom of Ludgate Hill and from about a third of the way up it is not obstructed, because of the curvature of the 19th century buildings that have been there for a long time. It is when you get two-thirds of the way up Ludgate Hill that the view is obstructed by Juxon House.
LORD WALSTON: The noble Earl is quite correct. There are certain points on Ludgate Hill where the new building makes no difference to the view, but there are other points, rather closer, where the view should be all the better, where the new building juts out in front of the previous building line from St. Martin's Church and there the real obstruction takes place. Without stressing that point unduly, I think that what happened at the time of the inquiry was that the man in the street did not realise just what this meant. Pictures were published and they were looked at—I looked at them myself. They were pictures which, as noble Lords who saw them will remember, were taken as from the air and everything looked very nice. But one of the unfortunate things is that the ordinary person who looks at St. Paul's, who works in the City and goes to admire this wonderful place, does not look at it from an aeroplane or a helicopter but from a bus or the street. Had the views published in the newspapers been of a man's eye view instead of a bird's eye view. I think even at that stage the outcry would have been very different indeed.
I think we should also remember, when we are talking about St. Paul's and the steps which can be taken in future to prevent these things happening, the vandalism that has gone on in the past in the City of London and elsewhere. During the war there was a great outcry about the bombing of the City churches, and it was a shocking and a horrible thing. During the war the City lost six Wren churches by Hitler's bombs. Compare that with a figure of eighteen City Wren churches

1119
which have been pulled down in the last hundred years in order to make way for property development in the City. We have been in the past lavish in the destruction of our City treasures, and we are now continuing, not to destroy, but partially to obliterate the greatest of them.
In order to prevent this sort of thing in the future—and I am hoping that the damage already done can be put right—can we not make certain, when any of our national monuments are affected by any building plans whatsoever, or by any alterations in the existing surroundings and environment, not only that there should be the fullest publicity given to the matter in the Press, but that the pictures of the designs are taken, as I say, not from the air, but from ground level, so that the ordinary, uninitiated men and women—not the trained architect and town planner—can realise what is happening; and, furthermore, that these pictures and a complete description are shown on television throughout the country, and not simply locally in whatever area is to be affected by the new plans. In this way there will at least be an opportunity for those who feel strongly to realise what is happening, to bring pressure to bear or organise public opinion and test public opinion, so that we shall not suddenly wake up, as we have at the present time, and find what is happening to any of our great national monuments.
It is particularly cynical, I would say, that in this year, when we are celebrating the quatercentenary of the birth of William Shakespeare, our greatest English playwright and poet, we should at the same time be allowing the obliteration of one of the finest views of the greatest work of the greatest English architect. Why can we not be celebrating by allowing a better view of this great work in this particular year, instead of making it more difficult for the people to see and giving the impression to the world at large that more important to the City of London than beautiful things is the acquisition of higher rents and greater profits?
6.33 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has raised this matter in an
1120
Unstarred Question. He asked a Starred Question about it recently, but, of course, this is an occasion which enables noble Lords to express their views much more fully than is possible by question and answer. Before I come to the detailed matters about St. Paul's, there is one point I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who is to reply, and that is exactly where the Government stand on this matter. I know that in these days the tentacles of Government control spread very widely, but supposing the City Corporation, and other people concerned in this matter, agreed to demolish part of Juxon House, could the Government come down and say, "No, you must not do it?" We ask Questions of the Government in this House and in another place, but I think it would help everybody if the noble Lord could tell us exactly where the Government stand on this issue.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the Holford Plan for St. Paul's is, in the main, a good plan. We all know that Sir William Holford is one of the great architects of the day, and that he took immense trouble over St. Paul's precincts. But, after all, good though the plan may be, it has, in my view, in the noble Lord's view, and in the view of many other people in the country, one great flaw, and that is this question of Juxon House. I think the South side of St. Paul's precincts has been enormously improved. The buildings there have been put back, and as you come along from the Bank of England, going west, and pass St. Paul's to-day, it stands out remarkably, and far better than it ever did in the past. But the flaw is, of course, this West Front.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said absolutely correctly that when you look up from the bottom of Ludgate Hill, Juxon House does not conceal any more of the Cathedral than was concealed in the old days: the view is exactly the same. In other words, the building line of Juxon House is the same as the old building line. But when you walk up Ludgate Hill a little further, particularly if you are walking on the North side, on the left going towards St. Paul's, when you reach a building with which I am connected—that is to say, the new building of the Colonial Mutual Life

1121
Assurance Society, of which I am chairman—and which was erected two years ago, you see this great building sticking out in front of you and definitely shutting out a great part of the view of the Cathedral, which to-day, now that the West Front has been cleaned, is really a wonderful sight. It reminds me more of a church in Venice or in some sunny country in the South. It is a remarkable sight indeed.
When my company put up their building two years ago they had to conform with the Holford Plan, and the Plan prescribed that the building (which is on the west side of Ave Maria Lane, with Juxon House on the other side) had to curve round to the North. There is now a curve round to the North at the top of Ludgate Hall which was prescribed by Sir William Holford. If only that curve had been continued the whole front of the cathedral would have been shown up, and there would have been an uninterrupted view, far better than there was before.
I agree that the view to-day from the bottom of Ludgate Hill is no worse than it used to be, and I suppose that if the curve of the building with which I am connected had not been laid down and it had remained straight as it was in the old days, possibly nobody would have raised any point. But the fact is that, having made this curve in the building next to Juxon House, the obvious thing was to carry it on and to take advantage of the fact that, with the demolition of the old buildings, one would be able to produce a far better and finer view of St. Paul's than ever existed before. That opportunity has, in my view, been lost.
I believe that the development, of which Juxon House is a part, is known as the Paternoster Development, including all those vast buildings now being put up on the old bomb sites near Moor-gate and North of St. Paul's; and I believe that a large part of the ground is owned by the Church Commissioners. We know that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral do not like this excrescence of Juxon House. Surely it should be possible for the leaders of the Church of England—the Dean and Chapter and the Church Commissioners, who own the land—to come to some arrangement under which this building could be stopped.
1122
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, very rightly, that St. Paul's Cathedral is not only a heritage of the people of this country but one of the great monuments in the British Commonwealth, and that it is a heritage of all the people of the Commonwealth. I was talking only yesterday to an Australian friend, a man who was born in London, I suppose, over fifty years ago, and is now back in London for the first time since he left it as a boy. He told me that he was horrified and appalled when he stood outside the Colonial Mutual Building in Ludgate Hill and saw what was going to happen.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that all this was decided years ago, when everybody seemed to agree to it. But, of course, as he also said, people do not fully realise what is going to happen until they actually see it; and now that it is there for everybody to see, I am convinced that the great majority of the ordinary people of this country would rather see this offending building put back and the new and great view of the West Front which would then be possible brought into being.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him this question? He spoke about his own building and its curve; and presumably the noble Lord at the time saw the surrounding plans. Could he say, when his company agreed to put up this building with this curve, that they were aware that a building like Juxon House was going to be built as it is now?
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I think that, in so far as we want to get it, we certainly were aware. I have always wondered why this building had to be put on a curve at all, as the curve was not going to be continued. I have heard since that it has been said that the reason was in order to improve the approach up Ave Maria Lane from the South; but as a matter of fact, Ave Maria Lane is a one-way street going from North to South.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly my noble friend Lord Walston, and I am afraid that I may be less reasonable and more outspoken than he was. I

1123
am very glad to see the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London in his place, and I hope that, though he is not on our list of speakers, he will contribute to this discussion. As a layman it seems to me quite incomprehensible that anybody should seek to justify the building of anything which even partly obscures the view of St. Paul's Cathedral, which, in my view and that expressed by my noble friend, is one of the most beautiful works of one of the finest architects of all time. Surely it is our duty, and only common sense, to "cash in" on the advantages of the effects of the bombardment of protest and try to allow the Cathedral to remain unobscured so far as possible.
I remember many years ago, when I was quite a small boy, an advertisement which used to appear in Underground trains, which depicted the whole of Ludgate Hill as if it were covered with a great carpet with St. Paul's at one end, In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have said, I still think that, with the imposition of this building, the view as depicted in that advertisement would no longer be fully possible. That is looking at it from the bottom of Ludgate Hill; I have looked at it from all parts of Ludgate Hill.
It may be a matter of opinion, but to my mind most modern office buildings are so unsightly that it is really no less than an insult to the memory of Sir Christopher Wren to have the effrontery to install one in such a position as to obscure even one stone of his masterpiece. I am not alone in this view. Large numbers of our fellow Londoners regard these monstrosities as a sort of bad joke which has gone too far. A good example is at the corner of Moorgate and London Wall, where there is a series of enormous buildings, with an all-glass frontage, which look as if they have been blown over by a gale. Some people regard them as monuments to the ineptitude of our present-day architects. Nothing I can really say can adequately describe the contempt which large numbers of the public hold for the designers of these hideous buildings. I beg Her Majesty's Government to do all in their power to prevent this further obstruction
1124
of the setting of this beautiful building which remains to us; to call a halt to the completion of this work, and to remove the excrescence which has already begun to make its appearance.
Before I sit down I should like to express my gratitude to a number of newspapers for having drawn public attention to this matter, particularly, perhaps, to the Daily Telegraph, which has mounted a consistent and, I hope, fruitful campaign. I am sure we should all be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Walston for his efforts and for putting down this Question on the Order Paper. I ask the Government to do something popular for once, and put a stop to this nonsense.
6.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, if the Fire of London had not occurred I should be among the most enthusiastic supporters of the noble Lord, Lord Walston. In that event we should be dealing with a magnificent Gothic Cathedral; and the principal feature of the Gothic style is that beauty and interest reside in its parts even more, perhaps, than in the building as a whole. I should therefore be pleading for every possible vista and every possible glimpse of that Gothic Cathedral to be afforded, since I should be confident that an exquisitely beautiful sight would result from each view.
But we are, in fact, dealing with a baroque domed church; and in such a case totally different considerations apply. In the case of a baroque domed church interest and beauty reside not in the parts, but in the whole. The beauty of the church consists in a relation between the walls, the portico, the towers and the dome; and unless those features are properly arranged, the beauty of the church disappears. This implies that such a church must be seen from a particular viewpoint. It is necessary, in the case of a church of the character of St. Paul's, to provide in the front of it a piazza or precinct of a certain size; and that piazza must conform to three rules.
In the first place, it must be wide enough to embrace the whole front of the church. Secondly, it must be long enough to enable the onlooker to stand far back from the church, for the simple

1125
reason that if you approach a domed church too closely the dome inevitably disappears behind the portico. And the third rule is that the piazza must be level so that the eye of the onlooker is on the same level as on the steps of the church. If these rules are not observed, you get a false perspective of the building; the proportions appear to be wrong, and the beauty of the church—I am speaking of the formal beauty of the church and not of its associations, with which it is not for me to deal—is very largely impaired. Sir William Holford has given us such a piazza, and I believe that it will prove to be of adequate size. He has given us a covered place underneath the annexe to Juxon House where we may stand and gaze at the beauty of the cathedral, and I, for one, very much look forward to standing in that place and seeing once again St. Paul's Cathedral as it should be seen.
So far, I have spoken of theory, but I would now speak of practice, and of another domed church. When I first visited Rome there was a wedge-shaped block of buildings called the Spina, between St. Peter's Square and the River Tiber. The buildings were slightly picturesque but of no particular interest. The streets led obliquely towards St. Peter's, and afforded no view of the Basilica to the approaching traveller. I was arrested. When you emerged from the Spina and took a few paces to the left, then, suddenly, all the glory of the piazza, the colonnades, the fountains, the obelisk, and the Basilica itself, were revealed from exactly the right aspect. It was an unforgettable experience, and one which I shall not know again, because after my first visit came Mussolini, that enthusiastic but incompetent town planner. And after he had signed the Lateran Treaty he decided to commemorate it by building a road (and he called it the Reconciliation Road) from St. Peter's down to the Tiber. That road breaks all the rules of an open space from which you ought to look at a baroque church. You see only a part of the front. You see the dome detached from the rest of the Basilica. And since the Reconciliation Road slopes downwards (though not as steeply as Ludgate Hill slopes) to the Tiber, you see the Basilica from below. I am quite sure that no one in his senses
1126
would compare the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to the late Signor Mussolini, but I do beg that he will avoid Signor Mussolini's mistakes.
6.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but one or two points have been made on which perhaps I ought to say a word. The Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's have consistently opposed this particular aspect of Sir William Holford's Plan, so far as the northern side of the precinct is concerned. They opposed it at the public inquiry, and they submitted an alternative which, in my judgment—though these things are necessarily subjective—would have been much better than the plan which Sir William Holford had put forward. That was rejected. The Dean and Chapter have never altered in their opinion, and perhaps this is an opportunity to express on their behalf—though it is a little dangerous for a Bishop to express any opinions on behalf of his Dean and Chapter—the gratitude which they feel to all those people who have shown their very deep concern for St. Paul's in all the discussions and publicity which have taken place since Juxon House began to go up and the view, which we had enjoyed only for nine months, began to disappear.
The other point I want to make is to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, so rightly said: that neither the Dean and Chapter nor the developers, who are the Church Commissioners, in association with other firms, are able in the present circumstances to stop the work on Juxon House. They are, indeed, under contract to build a building precisely on that site, and conforming precisely to Sir William Holford's Plan, and to complete it by a fixed date. If they were to depart from that I believe that there would be considerable penalties.
It should also be made clear that the Church Commissioners did not, in fact, own the site of Juxon House. Their main properties lay to the North of Paternoster Row, but in order that one developer should be in charge of the whole of the development North of the Cathedral they were urged to acquire the other sites between Paternoster Row and

1127
the cathedral, including Juxon House. I mention this lest it be thought that the Church Commissioners themselves were anything but somewhat reluctant to be the developers of this particular part of the scheme. But they thought it their duty to be associated, on behalf of the Church, with the whole of the Paternoster development.
Lord Walston has said that if arrangements could be made to stop the work, no opposition would be raised by the Dean and Chapter. That, I imagine, could be regarded as almost to-day's masterpiece of under-statement. Also, though I have no authority to say this, it is unlikely that unless the Church Commissioners were going to be badly out of pocket over the business they and their fellow developers would be any less reluctant to fall in with what is so clearly expressed public opinion. But, by themselves, neither the Commissioners nor the Dean and Chapter can move an inch. They are in the hands of Her Majesty's Government and, in a sense, of the Corporation of the City.
7.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, introduced his Unstarred Question with a great deal of persuasive charm. That is something that we have, of course, come to expect from him. He has put this Question to Her Majesty's Government, and it is divided into two parts. Therefore, at the outset, I should like to direct my attention to the first part of his Question asking whether the Government will look into the possibilities of moving back the building known as Juxon House.
I think it would be as well to clarify straight away the powers of the Minister in this matter. These powers derive from Section 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. The Minister can make orders revoking or modifying the existing planning permission and he can require the removal of what has already been built. Naturally, compensation would be payable for the abortive expenditure involved. I was going
1128
to say that I understand that the Church Commissioners are under contractual obligation to complete the building as proposed. In fact, that has already been confirmed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke at some length on that aspect of the matter.
I think all noble Lords will agree that the Minister would not be justified in taking such drastic action unless the circumstances were altogether exceptional. I think it would equally be agreed that decisions must always be taken as the result of the production of plans, and in some cases of models as well, and that these decisions cannot wait until the actual building is being erected. It is, I think, reasonable to suppose that once a planning decision has been taken, and more especially when it has been taken down to the approval of detailed architectural plans, a developer is entitled to rely on being able to go ahead. This is all the more the case after a lengthy public investigation, and after lengthy expert examination as well. In such a case if planning permission were to be revoked, compensation would hardly be an adequate gesture, and the whole basis of the planning system, upon which people can and do rightly depend, once well-considered decisions have been taken, would be overturned.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the developers would feel aggrieved if they were ordered by Her Majesty's Government to stop this development, and paid adequate compensation? He said that it would hardly be sufficient. I think those were his words. He implied that they would want something more than straightforward compensation.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am talking about the general case of planning permissions and revocations of such permissions. In general, developers would be aggrieved, and when it comes to compensation it is, I should imagine, in some cases at any rate, a question of loss of time and not merely the value of the building itself. There would be many things to be considered. But I am merely making the general case of the undesirability of revoking permission at any time, and especially after building has started

1129
to take place. The circumstances have altogether to be quite exceptional.
Let me therefore examine for a moment whether the circumstances are so exceptional and the procedure so defective in this case that my right honourable friend would be justified in ordering Juxon House to be demolished, and for the building line to be set back further in order to satisfy the noble Lord and those who are of a like mind. Perhaps I might interpolate at this juncture that I have made a close examination of all the documents in this case. I have not only visited the site this week, and crawled all over the building sites all round St. Paul's, but as a matter of fact I visited it from personal interest even before the noble Lord put down his previous Question last month, because I was so struck by the photograph which appeared in the national Press.
It is necessary to go into a bit of history. When Mr. Duncan Sandys approved the L.C.C. Administrative County of London Development Plan in March, 1955, he made an amendment to allow the St. Paul's Precinct to be given further consideration. He said:
"I cannot help feeling that a unique opportunity is being missed to provide a truly worthy setting for Wren's world-famous Cathedral".
As a result, the Corporation of London appointed Sir William Holford to prepare a plan for the Precinct, and his report was presented to the Court of Common Council in March, 1956. Both the Common Council and the L.C.C. accepted Sir William Holford's proposals, and in April, 1957, the L.C.C. formally submitted an amendment to their Development Plan to give effect to the principles of those proposals.
The statutory procedures were then gone through. Notice of the amendment was advertised in the London Gazette and in a local newspaper, in this case the City Press, in which there were advertisements for two consecutive weeks. An opportunity was afforded for objections to be lodged. The Minister arranged for a public local inquiry at which objections were heard, and this inquiry ran for four days from July 15 to 18, 1957. The Dean and Chapter were represented at this inquiry as we have heard, and they suggested that the angle of the Deanery should be reproduced on the North side
1130
where Juxon House is being built, to give a widening and embracing effect towards the Cathedral.
The Minister agreed with those who argued that the Holford proposals, which were supported in principle by the Royal Fine Art Commission, were superior to the alternative plan produced, and announced his decision to amend the Development Plan on January 2, 1958, in accordance with the submitted proposals for the North side of the forecourt, but said that he thought the South side needed further consideration. Planning permission was subsequently given for the development of the North side.
Those are the bare bones of the case, and I think it must be agreed there was no defect in the procedure—in fact, the noble Lord admitted that there was not—and that there was no lack of opportunity to give evidence or to produce alternative plans. But I have a good deal more to say about what was going on at the time this procedure was being gone through, and this part of my reply inevitably overlaps the second part of the noble Lord's Question referring to methods whereby public opinion can be more effectively consulted when proposals for buildings are made which affect places of national and historic interest.
Immediately Sir William Holford's report was completed his scheme received national publicity in the Press. On March 16, 1956, the Evening Standard published an accurate sketch plan of the Holford proposals, which clearly showed Juxon House projecting beyond the curve of the new building in Ludgate Hill which is in front of it—the building to which my noble friend Lord Rathcavan has referred and with which he is concerned. Furthermore, the Evening Standard wrote this:
"There is no great approach to the Cathedral as at St. Peter's in Rome. One sees it from a variety of viewpoints, from sudden glimpses or towering above a picturesque conglomeration of lower buildings. One object of the scheme is to increase the variety of these surprise views."
At the end of that article, the last paragraph read as follows:
"A large model of the proposals as they will appear when completed, with photographs and drawings, is on view at Guildhall until March 23."

1131
There are also accounts of the Plan by the architectural correspondents in both The Times and the Daily Telegraph, both of which carried leading articles on the subject—articles generally of a somewhat critical nature. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has quoted something out of The Times, but I would suggest to him that, when it comes to publicity, there are far larger numbers of readers of the Evening Standard than there are of The Times. I have no doubt that other newspapers which I have not got to hand also will have carried accounts of this Plan of national significance.
A model was also exhibited in Parliament and there was a debate in your Lordships' House on April 19, 1956, on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of which we were reminded by my noble friend Lord Conesford when the noble Lord, Lord Walston, put down a Question on this matter last month. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in withdrawing his Motion, said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 196, col. 1114]:
"On the question of the layout of the precinct of St. Paul's, I am bound to say that, in all my experience in this House, I have never known such unanimity. Every single speaker, without exception, has expressed strong approval—and I put it mildly—of the Holford Plan. I hope that that remarkable expression of agreement will carry some weight with the Minister."
As I have said, there was a public inquiry in July, 1957. Once again the national Press took up this fascinating and important problem. Photographs were published in the Daily Telegraph giving the appearance of the Precinct of St. Paul's under both the Holford plan and an alternative idea put forward on behalf of the Dean and Chapter, and a summarised version of what took place at the public inquiry was also given. I have no doubt that the rest of the national Press followed suit.
I think I have said enough to show that neither the circumstances nor the procedure were so exceptional in this instance as to justify the Minister's overturning a decision which had been so carefully considered and threshed out, not only between experts, but in the full public gaze. Therefore, my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question must, I am afraid, be in the negative.
1132
When I come to the second part, I have already, of course, laid the ground for my reply by referring to the publicity which Sir William Holford's proposals received both locally and nationally, both in Parliament and in the Press. I cannot conceive of any planning case since the war where public opinion has been more effectively consulted, where the public have had so much opportunity to hear about and to see the plans and designs proposed as in the case of St. Paul's Precinct. It is not sufficient in this case to say that the effect could not be appreciated until Juxon House was seen on the ground. The effects of Juxon House on the longer vista from Ludgate Hill were plain enough on the Plan for any layman to comprehend. I have studied the plans and the photographs again and again, and I am convinced that there is no excuse for maintaining that the public have been misled in this case.
As I said on a previous occasion, it comes down to a difference of opinion as to whether the West Front of St. Paul's should be open to a longer vista, or semi-enclosed with a sense of intimacy, as proposed by Sir William Holford, so that the full width of the West Facade is not seen until one approaches some 35 to 40 yards closer than would otherwise have been the case. The Government, after the fullest consideration, came to the decision that Sir William Holford's scheme was right. In this they had the full support of the Corporation of London, the L.C.C., and your Lordships' House, which I venture to say goes to confirm that this was the right decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, talked a good deal, and very interestingly, about art and the place of art in public life, saying that its importance was related to the impact it had on ordinary people. But to a certain extent he contradicted his own argument by pointing out how tastes in art change from one generation to another. He cited his own father, I think it was, as a case in point. He told us not to be overawed by a great name, the name of Sir William Holford. In short, he tried to prove that Sir William Holford's Plan could be improved. But all these matters were, of course, gone into at the inquiry. I would dearly love to join in a discussion on this whole problem, which, as we

1133
have heard from other noble Lords, is a very subjective one. I should like to express my own views on the whole subject—on the vista, on the Plan both from the North or on what might happen to the South. That is not my duty this evening because my personal opinions have no importance in this matter.
However, I would resist one thing the noble Lord opposite said: that the mass of public opinion is against Juxon House being built where it is; and I would resist his suggestion that there is no evidence that public opinion is for it. After all, a few years ago all the speakers in the House of Lords were for the proposal. This evening, with the notable exception of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, the speakers have been against it. But, as the noble Lord will recognise, the protesters are always more to the fore than the contented people are. I do not think they would agree with this argument, based on a few letters in the Press, that the mass of public opinion is against this proposal.
I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that this is all a matter of personal taste, and while the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and his supporters are perfectly entitled to their own tastes—and I would agree with some of the things he said and some of the things the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said, while taking the opposite view of some of his remarks about all modern architecture—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say, all modern architecture.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry, I had the impression that the noble Viscount was rather prejudiced against it on the whole. I could agree with almost every word of the most interesting speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. But that is not my task; these matters are a question of personal taste. While the noble Lord and his supporters are perfectly entitled to their own tastes, they are not, I suggest, justified in saying, on the one hand, that proper consideration has not been given to the planning of the Precinct of St. Paul's, and, on the other hand, that the public has been left in ignorance of what was going on. Indeed, my Lords, I must reiterate that the public have never been
1134
so well informed, or had so much opportunity to be well informed, about a redevelopment of national importance, as they have had in this matter of the Precinct of St. Paul's Cathedral.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, reminded us that this is the fourth centenary of Shakespeare. I might have reminded him of something even more to the point, since we are talking about architecture: that this is the third centenary of the great architect Sir John Vanbrugh. I happen to have the good fortune to be the owner of a fine example of his building, which he put upon a site after pulling down a delightful Jacobean mansion which previously stood there. I think the desecration of the eighteenth century went far beyond anything that we are perpetrating in our generation; but look at what wonderful things they put in its place! But when we talk about desecration, I do not think we can blame ourselves more than our ancestors.
Be that as it may, for the future I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the Historic Buildings Act was passed only just over a year ago, and that, as a result of its passing, my right honourable friend sent out a circular last August to all local authorities, enjoining upon them the necessity for giving publicity to planning applications which might adversely affect buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The necessity for this is emphasised in that circular, both in the first and the fourth—which is the last—paragraphs. After emphasising that it will be desirable to arrange for publicity, the circular ends with these words:
"The Minister hopes that local authorities will not hesitate to take full advantage of this procedure in suitable cases, so that public opinion has an opportunity to declare itself before decisions of importance are taken."
My Lords, I am sorry that I have to reject the noble Lord's request that my right honourable friend should revoke the planning permission, but I hope that I have made the case for not doing so. I believe it to be overwhelming. I also hope that I have satisfied him that the Government, the Minister and the Ministry concerned are very much alive to the future and to the need for protecting our buildings of architectural,

1135
artistic or historic merit—a subject, in fact, which we debated on another Unstarred Question not long ago. With those final remarks, I trust that the noble Lord and those who support his view will give credit to those who disagree with them for doing what they believe to be the right thing and the best thing.

MERSEY RIVER BOARD BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.