Lords Sitting of 17 November 1964

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SHORTAGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPISTS
2.36 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: 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 plans they have in mind to alleviate the shortage of physiotherapists in the National Health Service.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, since 1961 increased numbers of students have started the three-year training course and, for this reason, I hope that from next year onwards more qualified physiotherapists will enter the National Health Service. Pay increases totalling 9½ per cent. were published on October 29. There is no general shortage of students for training, and the 34 schools, with an average annual intake of 900, are usually full. There has, however, been a persistent shortage of teachers, which has limited the opening of new schools. In recent years the average annual intake of student teachers has been only 20. Recent agreement with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has made it possible, however, to commence in January a new type of teacher training with the period reduced from two years to 17 months. The rates of pay for physiotherapy teachers have also been substantially increased. My hope that these measures will attract more physiotherapists to become teachers of their profession is reinforced by the fact that applications for the new training course, with an annual intake of 32 student teachers, are coming forward
492
satisfactorily. My right honourable friend intends to keep the position under close review.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very full Answer. May I ask him what guidance is being given to school-leavers and to careers masters and mistresses regarding careers in this profession?
LORD STONHAM: So far as school-leavers are concerned, a free leaflet on physiotherapists, in the series Careers in the Hospital Service, is issued by the Ministry of Health especially for school-leavers. With regard to guidance to careers mistresses and masters, it is an instruction to all youth employment officers in the Ministry of Labour that they should draw to the attention of those in charge of careers a booklet on physiotherapists which is included in the Choice of Careers series and an article on physiotherapists in the loose-leaf Careers Guide, both of which are purchased in large numbers by local education authorities.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me in writing whether what he has said about physiotherapists applies equally to all professions supplementary to medicine? Because, as he knows, there is a grave shortage in each one of these professions.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, I do know that there is a grave shortage in other professions supplementary to medicine, although it varies according to the particular specialty and, indeed, according to the area. But I would suggest to my noble friend that the best way of eliciting that information would be to put down a Question, which I should be glad to answer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I suggested that my noble friend should give me the information in writing. I did not ask for it now.
LORD STONHAM: I shall be very pleased to do so.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how very welcome it is to know that those on his side of the House now take a much more optimistic view of this profession than they did when they sat on this side?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord will also be aware that, even in the short space of lour weeks, new steps have been taken in the matter, and I have given details of some of them. My right honourable friend has discovered that there is, in fact, no uniform standard of staffing used by employing authorities for the employment of physiotherapists, and he is now considering whether it is feasible to devise better estimates of requirements so that we shall know the real need.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what steps have been taken in the last four weeks?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have just mentioned one of them; and perhaps the noble Lady will have noticed my mention of the new school which is coming along and which will in fact be sited within the constituency of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health.

THE BALDOCK BY-PASS
2.40 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: 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 progress is now being made with regard to the construction of the Baldock By-Pass.:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, work is expected to begin on this by-pass in the early summer of 1965. A postponement became necessary because of the need to hold a public inquiry in April into objections by local authorities to our proposals to provide a short link road between the by-pass and the Great North Road—that is, the A.1—north of Graveley. The predecessor of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport decided to meet these objections by providing an interchange at Letchworth Gate. This made it necessary to publish a new draft scheme and order, which he did on September 18.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask him whether he will do all in his power to influence his right honourable
494
friend to recognise the need for urgency in this job, to make sure that the last major bottleneck on the A.1 north of Hatfield is finally removed?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords, most certainly. But the noble Lord, who knows this area exceptionally well, will, in fairness to my right honourable friend's predecessor, appreciate that the delay from 1963 till now has been entirely due to objections by local authorities. The previous Minister met these objections and agreed to provide the link at Letchworth Gate. The draft order was published on September 18 and one must now wait at least until December 19 in order that an opportunity may be given for possible further objections. If there are no objections we hope to go to tender—preparations are being made now—early in the New Year and to start the work in the summer.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does not a major bottleneck constrict much less than a small bottleneck?
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that the residents of Baldock will appreciate his remarks to the full?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.

FOOD SHORTAGE IN INDIA
2.43 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government what action will be taken to help the Government of India to provide additional food, particularly rice, in order to make good the serious shortages existing in various parts of the Republic.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, responsibility for dealing with shortages of food in various parts of India rests with the Government of India. No request for help in dealing with the present shortage of rice in South India has been received from the

495
Indian authorities. In August and September the principal food shortages were in the wheat-eating districts of Northern India, and the British Government, at the request of the Indians, diverted to Indian ports three ships carrying 38,000 tons of wheat. If any further request is received we shall, of course, gladly consider how best we can help. Meanwhile, I am glad to remind the House also of the assistance given by OXFAM and other voluntary organisations.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask whether it is the policy of the Government to await requests of this sort from the countries that are having difficulties, or whether it is their policy to make an offer before a request is received?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we undoubtedly await requests from the Governments concerned. We cannot go into other countries, even if they be members of the Commonwealth, without a request. As the noble Lord knows, we are always in very close touch with the Indian High Commission Office and the Government of India, and undoubtedly any request we received from them would be looked at with great urgency and sympathy.

PROPOSED "UNIVERSITY OF THE AIR"
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions are regarding the establishment of a University of the Air as proposed over a year ago by the present Prime Minister; and whether they intend to expand existing educational television services by the use of separate television channels on a national or regional basis.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BOWDEN): My Lords, this question is under active consideration, but I am afraid that it is not yet possible to say when any definite statement can be made.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for a reply, which I had hoped would be a little fuller, may I, none the less, congratulate him on his first Answer at the Box? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that it might be desirable, in order to gain experience, to license stations on a regional or local basis where a university is ready to undertake all or part of the responsibility, and where funds may be made available; as, perhaps, in the case of Queen's University, Belfast?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, this is one of the many things we are talking about at this moment. The experiments which are being performed in Nottingham and in East Anglia are well known to us, and we welcome them; and this is one of the many things we are trying to settle at the moment. I apologise for not being in a position to say more. This is an extremely complex enterprise, and I think I can hardly be accused of exaggeration if I say we are facing something comparable in complexity to establishing, for example, an entirely new system of universities. One cannot do this without very prolonged consideration of the relevant facts, something which is taking a longer time than I had hoped.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that fuller reply. May I ask whether it will be possible to make the fuller statement within the next hundred days?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, indeed I hope so and I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will be with me in thinking so. Again I apologise, but this is a very complex enterprise on which we are working. I assure you that we are going as fast as we can.

REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
2.48 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I should like to inform the House that I hope to make a Statement on South Africa at about 3.30 p.m.
Meanwhile, I hope the House will allow me to make a Statement, which is quite a lengthy one, on Members' pay. I think it would be for the convenience

497
of the House if I repeated to-day the Statement made by my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, yesterday in another place on the subject of the remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament. Normally it is not the practice for Statements to be repeated here on the day after they have been made in another place, but as the subject matter of this one so clearly concerns all Members of this House I think it only right that the House should have the information at first hand. This is the Statement that was made yesterday in the House of Commons—and I hope that copies have now reached the Leader of the Opposition aid the Leader of the Liberal Party here:
"The House will recall that on the 19th December, 1963, my predecessor announced that a Committee would be set up under Sir (Geoffrey Lawrence
'To review, and to recommend what changes are desirable in, the remuneration of Mr. Speaker, Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons and also the allowance for Members of the House of Lords, having regard to their responsibilities, to the place of Parliament in the national life and to the changes which have taken place, since the existing emoluments were fixed, in general standards of remuneration, and to the increases in expenses borne by Members of both Houses in the discharge of their duties'
and to report to the Government which would be formed after the General Election. It was understood between the Parties that the Report would provide a basis for immediate action as soon as the Government and Parliament had had time to study the recommendations.
"As announced in the gracious Speech, we have received the Report of the Committee, A copy has been sent to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the text is being made available as a Command Paper to-day. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Sir Geoffrey Lawrence and his colleagues for the thoroughness with which they have carried out their task.
"The Government accept the recommendations of the Report as they affect the salaries and allowances of Members of both Houses, and will take appropriate steps to implement them. In outline these recommendations are: that the gross payments of Members of this House should be in-
498
creased to £3,250 a year, inclusive of what the Committee called the exceptionally heavy expenses' which Members incur in the discharge of their duties and which the Committee put at £1,250 a year. The whole amount of course will be subject to tax, allowance only being made for proved Parliamentary expenses.
"We further accept the Committee's recommendation that the car allowance for Members of both Houses should be 4½d. a mile; and that the allowance for Members of the House of Lords should be 4½ guineas for each day's attendance. The Resolution of this House to give effect to increases in remuneration for Members and to provide for the increased attendance allowances for the other House will propose, as was envisaged last year, that they should be made retrospective to the first day of this Parliament.
"The Government also accept that there should be a contributory pensions scheme for Members of this House, requiring an annual contribution by each Member assessed by the Committee at £150, and are studying the Report's detailed recommendations.
"With regard to the salaries of Ministers and others, while the Government do not dissent from the Committee's approach to the problem of recognising suitably the responsibilities that fall on Ministers, many of whose salaries have remained unaltered since 1831, they do not consider that in present economic circumstances it would be appropriate for ministerial salaries to be raised to the level recommended by the Committee. They propose that the increases should be reduced to half the amount of the increases proposed by the Committee, and that the new salaries should not take effect until April 1, 1965. The decision to take only half of the recommended increases would apply right through the range of Ministers, and would affect equally the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
"The Government further consider that with the extremely onerous duties falling in any modern Parliament on the Opposition Chief Whip, he, too, should receive a salary from public funds.

499
"Legislation will be introduced in due course to deal with a pensions scheme for Members, revised ministerial salaries, the payment to the Opposition Chief Whip and changes in the remuneration of Mr. Speaker."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. Generally speaking, I would agree with him that it is a mistake to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place the day before, but I think that on this occasion it is right that your Lordships should have the opportunity of commenting on the proposals in so far as they affect this House.
I would join with the noble Earl in thanking Sir Geoffrey Lawrence and his colleagues for the work they have done. In so far as the proposals do affect your Lordships, I think that they will be generally welcome, and we are glad that the Government have accepted the recommendations of Sir Geoffrey Lawrence.
LORD REA: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches agree that these proposals of Her Majesty's' Government should be approved, and we consider that this is a suitable and opportune time to bring them forward. Obviously, it is always an embarrassment for any interested body—in this instance, the British Parliament—to bring forward some measure which, while actually rectifying an injustice, does something of benefit to them. May I interpolate that that is exactly the position of the Liberal Party, who would like to see alterations in the electoral system, which would benefit them—but that is not the reason why we want them. The reason we want them is that they would be more honest and just.
I hope that it is not improper to say to the House (because I do not want to comment on what has been said about another place) that in this Paper there is reference to the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House and to the Chief Opposition Whips in your Lordships' House and in the other place, and I hope that the Government may bear this in mind. I know that there is nothing in the recommendations of the Committee, but it is mentioned as something to be thought about. We know
500
that the Leader of the Opposition in this House and the Chief Whip, of whichever of the two Parties they have been, have done very fine work.
I should like to mention the references to what is called in the Press, and I think in the Paper itself, the "attendance allowances" of noble Lords. I would point out that there is no such thing as an attendance allowance, and I think it desirable, if your Lordships would agree, that the public should be disabused of the impression, which is far too widely held, that Members of this House, apart from the Ministers of the Crown and the Lord Chairman of Committees, receive any attendance allowance whatever, or any other remuneration. The facility, of which only some of your Lordships take advantage, is the small allowance of up to, but not exceeding, three guineas a day for actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred in Parliamentary duties. This, of course, is limited to those who actually attend the House—it could not be given unless there was attendance—but it is in no way an attendance allowance, and the very considerable work which a large number of noble Lords give to the British Parliament is in all cases, rightly or wrongly, totally unremunerated.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, in view of the decision to increase the salary of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with effect from April 1 next, may I ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court Judges in England, Scotland and Ireland have received no increase of salaries since 1954, whereas the lower justiciary have had three or four increases, and in view of the pledge given by the late Government to introduce this Session legislation to provide for increases in the remuneration of the Superior Judiciary, whether the Government intend to introduce such legislation and to secure that the salaries, not only of the Head of the Judiciary, but also of other members of the superior Judiciary, may be increased with effect from April 1 next?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should have thought, with respect, that that Question went pretty wide of the Lawrence Committee's Report; but any matter raised by the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor will obviously be given careful attention by the Government. Unless my

501
noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to say anything, that is all I would wish to say on this particular subject.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he will undertake to make a statement in the near future on this subject?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: No, my Lords, that is something I cannot do, except in the sense that I am always ready to make a statement which may amount to saying that there is not very much to report; but I am not going to say that a decision will be reached in the near future. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that this is too far from the Rules of Order to enable the question to come within them.
The reception given to the Statement by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party has been kind and generous. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised the position of the possible remuneration of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Chief Whip in this House——
LORD REA: The official Opposition.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is rather like the use of the words "Roman Catholic". People understand after a time whom one is talking about, if one talks of "Catholics"; but I hope that I shall always satisfy all noble Lords in my use of phraseology. At any rate, the Leader of the official Opposition and the Chief Whip of the official Opposition undoubtedly have performed, and are performing, very onerous duties in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was kind enough to say. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was too altruistic to raise the issue himself, but now that it has been raised I would say clearly that it is under careful consideration. It certainly has not been forgotten. The Lawrence Committee did not feel able to make a pronouncement on this matter, but it is being considered now.
I do not think think that there are other questions that I have been called upon to answer this afternoon. I would just add that all that hat; been said, including the remarks of the noble and learned
502
Lord, Lord Dilhorne, will be considered with much attention.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before we leave the subject, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a small point in regard to the increase of car allowance to 4½d. per mile? How does that compare with the car allowance given to civil servants?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that I should need notice of that question. If the noble Lord can tell us this afternoon, of course, I shall be very grateful to him.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Earl what I have been told, but I am not quite sure that it is right.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the Lawrence Committee, which recommended an increase of 1½ gns. in the so-called "attendance allowance" for Members of this House, and Her Majesty's Government, who have adopted this recommendation, are aware that those who attend regularly and speak here have to employ secretarial assistance in their work and have often to carry out a great deal of research and that not only are they well out of pocket on the existing 3 gns., but will still be on the 4½ gns. to which the amount has now been increased?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I would rather not become involved in discussing the merits of the Lawrence Committee's Report, because I think that we all agree that we must regard their Report as much the most thorough there has ever been on this subject. I know that all sides of the House made representations to the Committee, and I can only assume that all this was carefully gone into by the Lawrence Committee.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, whatever the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party may say, the attendance allowance is an attendance allowance, and now that it has been increased by 11 gns. noble Lords on this side of the House may perhaps take advantage of it 100 per cent., especially as they have to tighten their belts in many other ways. The crowding on some of these Benches will be terrible. Can the noble Earl arrange for some of to sit on the Benches among the Bishops?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I appreciate the full implication of the last remark. But there seems to be room there, and no doubt the noble Earl, even when he has tightened his belt, will be welcome on that side. The noble Earl looks to be in remarkably good health up to the present, although I can see that there are many hard days coming.
I should like to deal with one point, though not at all conclusively, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He does not like the expression "attendance allowance". If the noble Lord has some idea formulated on that particular point, perhaps he will let us know. I do not mean now necessarily, although we are glad to listen to his suggestions at any time.
LORD REA: My Lords, my main difficulty is that the allowance is not paid for attendance, but to refund what has been paid out of pocket. Noble Lords cannot get it unless they attend. It is not automatic. If the noble Earl gets his three guineas every time he comes, I am sure he will in his conscience justify it by his out-of-pocket expenses.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl and all noble Lords will justify the receipt of this attendance allowance. I am not sure that it is wrong to call it an attendance allowance. You might come here and entertain all the most important people in the world, but if you do not sit in the Chamber you will not get the allowance. You may be engaged in every kind of research, but again you will not get the allowance. So the phrase does not seem to me altogether inappropriate. But, as I have said, if the noble Lord will suggest something else, I will look at it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Why not "expenses allowance".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as I say, I am ready to look at any suggestion by the noble Lord, or from other noble Lords.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Wellington,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Alexander of Hillsborough,

E. Attlee,

E. Crawford,

E. De La Warr,

E. Dundee,

E. Limerick,

E. Longford,

E. Munster,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Scarbrough,

E. Swinton,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Goschen,

V. Simonds,

V. Soulbury,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Airedale,

L. Amulree,

L. Balfour of Burleigh,

L. Bridges,

L. Shepherd,

L. Sherwood,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang,

L. Burden,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Chorley,

L. Conesford,

L. Dilhorne,

L. Hawke,

L. Henderson,

L. Henley,

L. Inchyra,

L. Jessel,

L. Kennet,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Macpherson of Drumochter,

L. Mancroft,

L. Morrison of Lambeth,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Newton,

L. Ogmore,

505

L. Rea,

L. Reid,

L. Robertson of Oakridge,

L. Sainsbury,

L. Saltoun,

L. Shackleton,

B. Summerskill,

B. Swanborough,

L. Wise,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Alexander of Hillsborough,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Goschen,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Dilhorne,

L. Henderson,

L. Henley,

L. Morrison of Lambeth,

L. Morton of Herryton,

L. Rea,

L. Saltoun.

L. Shepherd,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang.

—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Administration of Justice Bill is a title which often conceals esoteric mysteries of great interest to practising lawyers but of not much interest to anyone else, and I will not deny that this Bill has one or two matters in it which appear to be rather mysterious. Those of your Lordships who have glanced at Part II may already have seen somewhat forbidding provisions about executions in the county court and qualifications of Chancery Masters; and if anyone has got as far as the Schedules he may have looked upon some intriguing allusions to tramways not wholly situate in Scotland—a phrase which conjures up the vision of some electric monster clanking over Carter Bar, a vision apparently remote from the administration of justice. I may even, at a later stage, be called upon to explain the operation of the Exchange system or the scope of a writ of justicies—though I hope I shall not.
But the fact is that this Bill is mainly concerned with some very real problems of great importance to many hundreds of persons who are not lawyers; and most of what I have to say to-day will be directed to those problems and the way in which the Bill attempts to solve them. They arise out of the administration by the courts of money held on behalf of litigants—what are normally called "funds in court". But before I refer to these matters in detail, I ought to say a word about the structure of the Bill.
Part I of the Bill is concerned solely with funds in court; that is to say, with the machinery for paying money into court, its investment by the court and the many ancillary matters, such as the making of procedural rules and the preparation of the relevant accounts. Part II contains miscellaneous provisions of varying importance designed to improve the administration of justice. Of these only one is relevant to funds in court, but it deals with a very important social question; namely, the extent of the

507
courts' control of widows' damages; I shall revert Ito this subject at a later stage. Part III deals with an isolated point affecting the qualifications of service members of War Pensions Appeal Tribunals. Part IV makes provision for various matters affecting Northern Ireland, and Part V contains the normal supplemental clauses.
Dealing with Part I, for several hundred years it has been the practice of the courts to administer money belonging to suitors which has, for one reason or another, been paid into court. Your Lordships may remember that in the old days funds in the Court of Chancery were entirely at the disposal of the officers of the court and were, in fact, freely used by them for investment on their own account. Unfortunately, much of the suitors' money was, in the early 18th century, invested in the South Sea Company and was lost when the Bubble burst. One consequence of this was the exercise by the Lord Chancellor and by Parliament of a much stricter control over Chancery funds. As early as 1724, the Lord Chancellor directed each master to keep the funds for which he was responsible in a chest with one lock and two padlocks. The chest was left at the Bank of England, the master held the key of the lock and the keys of the two padlocks were held, one by one of the six Clerks in Chancery and the other by the Governor of the Bank of England. This may have been a safe system, but it was obviously not very convenient.
The system of dealing with funds in court was very much improved during the 19th century; there is no need for me to describe the history of these improvements, because what is important to-day is the current system, its defects and the proposals made in the Bill for remedying them. If I may put it very briefly, there are two systems of investing money in court, operated respectively by the Supreme Court and the county courts. In the Supreme Court, money is invested in specific securities, the permissible range being prescribed by Rules of Court (at present it corresponds generally to the "narrow range" of trustee investments prescribed by the Trustee Investments Act, 1961); in the county courts the money is pooled and transferred to the National Debt Commissioners for investment in Govern-
508
ment securities, the suitors' capital being guaranteed, pound for pound, and a fixed rate of interest being paid to them.
Neither of these systems has proved satisfactory. If I may take the county courts first, although the system of investment in the county courts is proof against a decline in cash values, it has not been proof against inflation. In particular, a fund invested on behalf of a young child which may remain in court for ten or fifteen years is not properly invested if its cash value remains constant until the child is 21 in spite of a continual fall in the value of money such as we have experienced. Nor have the county courts been able to pay a satisfactory rate of interest, as many of the securities in which the funds are invested were bought by the Commissioners in the "cheap" money period and the yield is therefore low.
The Supreme Court system has been proved I think on the whole to be rather worse. This is the system of investing in specific Government securities. This has led to considerable losses and in some cases to real hardship. Most of the money invested consists of either damages recovered by infants, or by widows in Fatal Accidents Acts claims, and the continued decline in gilt-edged values since the war, together with the fall in the value of money, has resulted in funds invested in this way losing a very considerable part of their value. Those funds invested in undated Government stock (and particularly in 3½ per cent. War stock, because of the taxation advantages) have fared even worse because these stocks have declined so seriously. The losses in cash value have been bad enough; in actual value they have been, for some suitors, catastrophic.
Take, for example, a boy of ten who in 1947 was awarded £1,000. If the £1,000 had been invested in ordinary shares, then by the time he was 21 there would, of course, have been a considerable capital appreciation in his £1,000. But if it was invested in gilt-edged stocks, then when he became 21 in 1958, the £1,000 which the State had been looking after for him would only be £720. The State would have lost £280 out of his £1,000 and, of course, the £720 which alone he got back would be worth very much less than a similar number of pounds would have been worth in 1947.

509
It was in consideration of these matters that my predecessor, the noble and learned Earl, Lori Kilmuir, appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Pearson, as he then was, to examine the investment of funds in court. That Committee reported in July, 1959, and it is on their Report that Part I of the Bill is based. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude—and I am sure I can in this matter speak for the noble Earl, and for the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne—to Mr. Justice Pearson and his colleagues for a most valuable Report.
My Lords, I do not need to examine at length the Pearson Committee's report. It is sufficient for me to say that the Committee considered both the Supreme Court and the county court systems of investment open to grave criticism on the lines I have already indicated; and they therefore recommended the setting up of a Central Corporation to which money could be transferred from both the Supreme Court and the county courts for investment, very much on the lines of the ordinary unit trust, in equities, gilt-edged or any other securities. The Pearson Committee appreciated that some suitors (for example, young infants) might be more concerned with capital growth than income, whereas others, whose money would normally be withdrawn in a fairly short time, would be more concerned to receive a large income while preserving the capital intact. They therefore recommended that the Central Corporation should set up two unit trusts", one a short-term and one a long-term, the underlying investments being selected with these different needs in view. The courts could then order investment in one or other, as might be appropriate to the circumstances of the particular suitor.
In substance, the Bill implements the Committee's recommendations, though the machinery looks rather different. This difference sterns from the decision to retain the county court system in the place of the "short-term" trust, and to make it available to the Supreme Court as well as to the county courts. The Pearson Committee would itself have favoured this solution if the interest payable by the National Debt Commissioners could be raised to a rate comparable to that obtain-
510
able in the market. We can in fact do this, by making available (as this Bill does) for the purpose of paying this interest all earnings on investments held by the Commissioners on behalf of the courts. I will not trouble the House with the technical details, but at present the Commissioners cannot use all such investments for this purpose; in future they will be able to do so.
That leaves us only with the longterm trust for the Central Corporation to manage. The Pearson Committee did not, deliberately, suggest how the Corporation might be constituted, but did recommend that it should be independent of Government control and should have experienced staff of the right calibre. Fortunately, there already exists an institution which fulfils these conditions, namely, the Public Trustee. Moreover, he is confident that he can assume this additional duty without any appreciable increase in his staff and without requiring any new accommodation. The result of making him responsible for the "longterm" funds will be to save both the suitors' and the taxpayers' money, and that is why the Bill places the control and management of these funds in the hands of the Public Trustee.
I hope the House will forgive this necessarily lengthy introduction to Part 1 of the Bill; it has at least had the merit of enabling me to deal very briefly with the clauses themselves. Clause 1 authorises the Lord Chancellor to make schemes for the establishment of these "common investment funds" under the control of the Public Trustee. The important facts to observe are, first, that the Public Trustee will be free to invest in any form of property; secondly, his only client will be the Accountant-General and he will in no way be concerned with an individual suitor's circumstances: it will be for the courts to consider these when deciding how to deal with the suitor's money. Thirdly, as in the case of a commercial unit trust, the value, and thus the buying and selling prices, of a share in one of the Public Trustee's funds will depend on the value of the underlying investments, so that, in a period of inflation, shares will maintain their real, and not only their nominal, value. I should perhaps add that although the Public Trustee's funds will be designed for the investment of money likely to remain

511
undisturbed for five years or more, the courts will be neither obliged to invest such money in these funds nor prohibited from investing in them money which will be withdrawn within a shorter period: to impose any such restrictions would be impracticable, since nobody can say at the outset how long a given sum of money will remain invested.
I need not detain your Lordships over Clause 2 (it makes consequential amendments to the Act of 1906 which set up the Office of the Public Trustee), but I should explain very briefly the remainder of Part I. The substantive changes in the systems of investment introduced by this Bill would in any event involve consequential amendments to Part VI of the Judicature Act, 1925 (which governs funds in the Supreme Court) and those provisions of the County Courts Act, 1959, which govern funds in the county courts. Much of Part VI of the Judicature Act is now obsolete (it was itself a Consolidation Act) and its language is often inconsistent with the more modern language of the County Courts Act, though intended to have the same meaning. Moreover, the Bill provides for a number of matters which will be common to both the Supreme Court and the county courts but for which separate provision is made in the two existing Acts. Part I of the Bill accordingly supersedes nearly all of Part VI of the Judicature Act and re-enacts in modern language those provisions which are still required, modified so as to allow for the new system of investment. It also makes the necessary modification to the County Courts Act and provides for those matters, such as accounts and the ultimate liability of the Consolidated Fund, which are common to both.
I do not think your Lordships will wish me to go through these clauses one by one. I ought, however, to mention in passing Clause 6, which, for the first time, sets out in a comprehensive and positive form the methods in which funds in the Supreme Court may be invested. The House will see from Clause 6(1) that, for the High Court, these methods are, first, placing to a deposit account; secondly, placing to a short-term investment account (which is the expression used to describe the current county court system, now applied to the Supreme
512
Court); thirdly, placing to a long-term investment account, which means investing with the Public Trustee; and, fourthly, investing in specified securities, which is the present system. Under Clause 6(2) mental patients' funds may, in addition, be invested in any securities which the Mental Health Authority may specify.
May I now turn to Part II? This part of the Bill deals, as I have said, with a number of unrelated topics, varying from the control of widows' damages to the commutation of annual payments made to the incumbents of benefices whose predecessors' incomes were prejudiced by the compulsory acquisition of the land on which the present Law Courts were built. I may say that this in itself is a fascinating story, but I do not think time permits of telling it here. There are only two matters dealt with by Part II to which I need draw the attention of the House. The first is Clause 19 and the second Clauses 20 and 21.
Clause 19 makes provision for the control in certain cases of damages awarded to a widow in a Fatal Accidents Acts claim. As your Lordships are probably aware, under the current law such damages are not paid direct to the widow but are paid into court and are dealt with as the court may direct. The court may order some or all of the money to be paid to the widow, or it may retain the money in court and order it to be invested on her behalf. Whether or not this control should be retained, modified or abandoned was one of the questions which the Pearson Committee was asked to consider. There are powerful arguments on either side. It may be said that to single out widows as a class unfit to be entrusted with large sums of money is inconsistent with the modern conception of equality of the sexes, and that if such a rule is justifiable at all it ought to apply to all widows' property. It may also be said that the Scots manage perfectly well without such a rule and that the Northern Irish have also managed without it since 1952 (though I believe there is a body of opinion in Northern Ireland in favour of its reintroduction).
Against this, those with much practical experience of the "county court widow"—and their number includes the Law Society, the T.U.C., Masters of the Supreme Court and Registrars of the County Court—think that it would be

513
wrong to allow a widow with no experience of handling large sums to have unfettered control of an award of damages which is meant to take the place, over the years, of the family wage packet. I think there is general agreement that, at any rate where there are infant children, some provision should exist whereby their interest in the fund may be safeguarded.
The Pearson Committee's Report canvasses the arguments on either side; the Committee itself comes down in favour of retaining the existing degree of control, while recognising that there might be a compromise solution whereby control was to be exercised only in the case of a widow with infant children. In such a case, the damages constitute, in essence, a "family fund", and, if the mother's own damages were paid out to her and were dissipated, the children's shares would be called on to pay for their maintenance to a greater degree than would otherwise have been the case. Indeed, of course, it has always been the practice of the court to give the widow by far the largest sum, on the footing that she would, after all, be using it for the benefit of the children. If one takes a widow with three children and there is a total award of £6,000, it would be common, I suppose, to find the widow being given £5,000 and the children a few hundred each on that basis.
The compromise to which I have just referred is adopted by the Bill. I should however, like to make it clear that my mind is by no means finally made up about it and I should very much like to hear the views of noble Lords, and of Members of another place, before coming to any final conclusion. Obviously, we cannot debate this issue in detail to-day, but I hope we may have a full discussion at a later stage.
The only other provisions of Part II on which I need detain this House are Clauses 20 and 21. Under the current law, a county court has jurisdiction to make what is called an administration order in respect of a county court judgment debtor: it is a rather less drastic form of bankruptcy and was in the past much used where the debt was insufficient to support a petition in bankruptcy. There is, however, a limitation on the county court's jurisdiction which cannot be exercised if the debtor's
514
indebtedness exceeds £50. This figure has stood since 1869, but it is no longer realistic and in practice it so restricts the scope of this jurisdiction as to make virtually useless. All those with experience of these matters think that the county court could again perform a useful function in this field if the limit were raised, and Clause 20 accordingly raises it to £250.
Raising the limit in this way means that there will in future be an overlap between administration orders and bankruptcy. Clauses 20 and 21 include provisions designed to avoid conflicts and to safeguard the interests of substantial creditors who may prefer the more formidable procedure of bankruptcy. I am not sure even now whether it is wise to specify a figure without making some provision for future alteration by statutory instrument, whether in Affirmative or Negative form, because otherwise we are always in this difficulty, that almost any figure in an Act of Parliament gets out of date, and as it is nobody's business to look to see whether English law is being kept up to date it then goes on and on; and here is a good example of a sum of money which was fixed in 1869 and obviously ought to have been altered a very long time ago.
There is very little that I need say about the remaining provisions of the Bill. I have already referred briefly to them aid the only clause to which I should like to draw particular attention is Clause 28. This clause will make it possible for the Public Trustee's common investment funds to be made available for the investment of funds in the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland. There will not be a separate Northern Irish Fund but, if the necessary Order in Council is made the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland will he able, on the Court's direction, to buy shares in the Public Trustee's funds.
I hope I have not detained the House overlong on what are somewhat technical matters. I would add only one thing. If there is any credit for this Bill it should go to the late Government. Some of your Lordships will remember that in June the noble Viscount. Lord Colville of Culross, opened a debate in your Lordships' House on law reform. I ventured at that time to suggest that the main reason why our law is in the mess it is in is that we have

515
no machinery for submitting it to systematic or continual review. The Lord Chancellor cannot do it himself, nor can his small staff. And while his Law Reform Committee may, I hope, having been a member of it for many years, have done some good work; and while judges, barristers and solicitors meeting for an hour and a half after a long day's work may at the end of a year or two produce a useful report on some relatively small point of law, you cannot overhaul the law of England in that way. I ventured to suggest that that was the main trouble, and it was not, as was so frequently said by way of excuse, lack of Parliamentary time.
I remember drawing attention to the fact that a Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Evershed had pointed out eleven years ago that we have about forty different Acts of Parliament dealing with the law of evidence over about 250 years. They ought to be codified. I remember asking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, how he was getting on; and, while not replying to that question at all, the noble and learned Lord maintained the view that there was no difficulty in preparing plenty of Bills; the whole difficulty was in finding Parliamentary time to get them through. I now find no step had been taken at that time to implement the Report of the Evershed Committee, now eleven years old. And whereas, from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, said, I expected to find the cupboards of the Lord Chancellor's Department stacked with the Bills all ready for presentation though unable to be presented owing to lack of Parliamentary time, on opening the Law Reform cupboard I found in fact—and here I think in another place metaphors have become somewhat mixed, because I have read of cupboards being opened and candelabra being found under carpets—an empty cupboard except for the one pigeon-hole which had this one Bill in it.
It is only right it should be made plain that it is to the late Government that any credit is due for the preparation of this Bill, and it is because of that that I have thought it right to leave in the Bill the recommendation that the present power of the court to control the damages awarded to a widow who has no children
516
should be revoked. But it is, if I may say so, eminently a matter for your Lordships' consideration and for those in another place.
If I may just shortly tell your Lordships the best arguments for letting the widow have the whole of her money at once, they are those put forward by the Bar Council to the Pearson Committee, which are these. One is that the imposition of a restraint by the State upon the right of an individual of full age and of sound mind to deal as she will with her own absolute property is fundamentally wrong; the second is, alternatively, that if the system of control i3 regarded as being in the nature of a social service, it is wrong to impose such a service upon some small section of the population against its wishes—the exercise of compulsory paternalism by the State in this type of case to the exclusion of all others cannot be justified; and thirdly, that there were at one time a number of restraints upon the rights of women of certain categories to deal with their own property, and, except for the control of damages awarded to widows under the Fatal Accidents Acts, all have now been removed.
They say that it is highly anomalous that a woman who has been awarded £5,000 damages in a personal injury accident can at once receive the whole of it, although she may have no experience at all in managing such sums, whereas in a fatal accident case the court has a power—it does not always exercise it, of course—to order the money to be paid into court; and then they say that damages awarded to compensate for actual pecuniary loss belong solely to the persons to whom they are awarded, whatever their status, and they should be free to spend them, if not under legal disability. A widow is under no such legal disability.
I appreciate fully the force of those arguments. At the same time I must say that personally I am troubled by the fact that, of course, there are others who know the litigants a good deal better than the barristers, and I am impressed by the fact that the Law Society, speaking for all solicitors, the Trades Union Congress, the experienced county court registrars who deal with widows, and Masters of the Supreme Court are all of the opinion that it would

517
be desirable to retain the present powers in the interests of widows themselves.
Of course, if a judge has a woman before him who has been in business and appears capable of managing her own affairs there is nothing to stop him from giving the damages to her at once, but it is said in these cases that there are too many men around who want to sell bankrupt businesses to widows who receive sums of this kind and relations who are only too anxious to borrow money from a woman who has suddenly received a very large sum. It is a very real protection to 1 he widow to be able to say: "Well, I am afraid I cannot, because the money is not under my control." Of course, if she needs the money for any special purpose, such as school fees, clothing, holidays and so on, she can, and does, apply to the local court for it. For these reasons I venture to hope that we shall have the experienced knowledge of your Lordships' House upon what I think is a difficult question and one which is really entirely a matter of opinion. I beg 10 move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, I had hoped this afternoon to be able to strike an entirely uncontroversial note, but in the light of some of the observations that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has made, I am afraid that will not be entirely possible. But I am very glad that the first Bill which has come before your Lordships' House for consideration in this new Parliament should be one to which I can give unqualified, or almost unqualified, support. I doubt whether there will be many other occasions on which I shall be able to do this, although, as I indicated in an earlier stage, I hope there will be at least one.
As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said, the Government have inherited this Bill from the last Government, and I sincerely congratulate the noble and learned Lord on bringing it before the House now. We should certainly have done so if we had won the Election. I was grateful to him for acknowledging so firmly that it was a Bill he had inherited, but, of course,
518
he had to add to that some observations of a controversial character. The noble and learned Lord reverted to his observations in the debate we had some time ago about law reform, and he asserted yet once again that the law of England is in a mess. It does not matter how long or how often the noble and learned Lord repeats that general observation, it will not command general acceptance. I entirely agree—I have never dissented from the proposition—that there are fields of the law which are capable of improve- ment, but I certainly said nothing in the course of the debate to which the noble and learned Lord thought fit to refer this afternoon to suggest that there was a stack of law reform Bills awaiting introduction. My argument was to the effect that the machine for law reform was satisfactory and could indeed be expanded, but, of course, the governing factor, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will find in due course, is the limitation upon Parliamentary time.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, referred to the Evershed Committee. Of course, the report of the Evershed Committee, of which the noble and learned Lord was a member, has been considered again and again, but it does not follow that just because a recommendation of a Committee has not been implemented by legislation, that recommendation was accepted. Having said that—and I am rather sorry that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, introduced this afternoon this note about law reform—I should like to express my thanks to him for the clear and able manner in which he expounded the contents of the Bill.
The problem of the proper investment of funds in court is no new one. My predecessor and I were both concerned about it. My predecessor, as the noble and learned Lord has said, appointed the Funds in Court Committee, presided over by Lord Justice Pearson, and I, too, should like to express my appreciation of the excellent work they have done, for which I am sure everyone who is aware of the complexities of this problem is most grateful. The Bill does not precisely follow the recommendations made by the Funds in Court Committee, but their Report is the basis of Part I, and where the Bill departs from their recommendations it is, I think, to make

519
improvements in the light of further consideration.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has drawn attention to what has happened in the past with regard to investments that have been made: how some of them have not been safe against inflation, and in some cases, as he indicated, there has been a substantial loss in capital value—that is to say, the litigant who has succeeded in obtaining an award of damages has found at the end of the day that the sum obtained because of the depreciation of the investment is far less than the sum awarded to her. I think it ought to be made absolutely clear that there can be no doubt but that those who in the past had the responsibility for deciding upon the investment of funds in court did their utmost to invest wisely; but the investments that they could make from funds in court, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, in a number of cases proved to be the reverse of beneficial.
It has always been a matter of great difficulty to satisfy those litigants who have suffered such a loss as to the reasons for it, and I hope that as a result of the somewhat complicated machinery which is now being set up that situation will not occur again in the future. While the monies which constitute the funds in court will, of course, have to continue to be invested in the most prudent manner, it will, I hope, under this system be possible to secure for those entitled to the money the advantages which accrue from shrewd investment on expert advice.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, referred, in a passage I am not sure I quite caught accurately but at which I shall look before Committee stage, to the low rate of interest where the funds were invested, I think he said, by the National Debt Commissioners; and he held out some hope that that would be capable of improvement because the interest, I think he said, from all the funds in court would be available for that purpose. If I have it right, that sounds most satisfactory. We will certainly look at that again, at what the noble and learned Lord has said, before we reach the Committee stage.
The long-term schemes for which provision is made by Clause I are a new
520
development, and I am sure it is right that they should be operated by the Public Trustee. As the noble and learned Lord said, the Bill places no restriction on the Public Trustee's powers of investment. That is an important point to which the noble and learned Lord, if I may say so with due respect, quite rightly drew attention. As some of your Lordships may remember, not long ago I, as Lord Chancellor, had to conduct an exhaustive and, if I may say it, exhausting inquiry into the operations of the Public Trustee; and in the light of that investigation I must say that I am entirely satisfied that the Public Trustee is the best person, and indeed the proper person, to be responsible for the investment of these funds.
I should have thought that the taking on of this additional burden would have meant a not inconsiderable increase of work for the Public Trustee, and I was therefore somewhat surprised by the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it was thought that no appreciable increase of staff would be required. Of course a great deal may depend upon what is meant by "appreciable". And it is true to say that the kind of staff the Public Trustee requires in this type of work would need to have considerable expert qualifications, and they are not so easily found.
I would just add that if the Public Trustee has not sufficient staff, there are likely to be delays which might be avoided; and delays in this field may involve loss of capital appreciation. One does not want anyone to have more staff than is necessary, and all I will say before I pass from this topic is that I hope that, if the Public Trustee finds that he does require more staff, in order to carry out this extra work which he is now undertaking, efficiently and speedily, the Treasury will turn a sympathetic ear to any request he may make for help.
I do not propose to say any more about Part I of the Bill to-day; nor, indeed, do I intend to say so very much about Part II. We may have some points to raise on Part I when we come to the Committee Stage, because of course we shall examine this Bill, although it has been inherited, with a fresh look and we will try to make it as good as it can be made. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, in particular,

521
to Clause 19. That is the clause which provides that the court shall keep control over the investment of sums awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act to a widow where proceedings were also brought for the benefit of an infant. In all the preliminary work which went on in considering the contents of this Bill there was throughout, as the noble and learned Lord has said, sincere controversy, of a non-political character, on the question of principle—namely, whether or not the courts should, in these modern days, continue to have control over the award of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act to widows. I must say that I find it hard to justify that degree of paternalism on the part of the court in relation to widows when one bears in mind that there is no such control over any sum of damages awarded to any spinster of any age. Why it should be thought that widows are less competent than spinsters to look after their own affairs, I cannot say. Why it is thought that a spinster can look after her affairs until she is married, but that if she married and subsequently became a widow, and there was an award under the Fatal Accidents Act, the court should then take control, I find it difficult to understand.
Of course, it is always said, as an argument in support of the courts' retaining the power they now have, that there are many men crowding around trying to sell the poor widow bankrupt businesses. That was a phrase which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used. I have never heard it said that there are too many men crowding round the spinsters who have obtained awards of damages, trying to sell them bankrupt businesses, or indeed to marry them. But in the case of the widow with an infant child, then I do feel that there is a case for continuing the court's powers.
I think the House will agree that where there is an award of damages to an infant, it is right that the court should, in the infant's interest, exercise some control over what happens to that money. I myself take the view—although I entirely agree with the, noble and learned Lord that this is a difficult issue—that the solution propounded in this Bill is right, because, as the noble and learned Lord has said, in making an award to the widow where there are infants the practice has been to award the major sum to the widow, bearing in mind that
522
she will look after the family, and smaller sums to the children. Therefore, where you have that kind of award, I think that the case for continuing the control is overwhelming. But where there is no infant and it is just a case that the court should exercise its power over a widow of any age, then I feel that it is wrong: one cannot in this respect draw a distinction between a widow and a spinster. We shall have an opportunity of debating this question at greater length, no doubt, during the Committee Stage.
On looking at the clause again, I should like to say that I am not entirely happy about the way in which it is drafted. I am a little puzzled in this respect. As your Lordships will see, the Explanatory Memorandum at page 3 says that this control will be exercised where money is recovered under the Fatal Accidents Act by a widow and also by an infant. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the court may control the money recovered by a widow as well as by the infant until the latter attains 21. When we look at Clause 19 we see that the clause applies not only where there is a widow but also where there is, or was, an infant. I am a little mystified, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will take note of this point—I do not expect him to reply to-day—as to the inclusion of the words "or was an infant". I wonder whether it does not to some extent conflict with the Explanatory Memorandum. I think it is perhaps desirable (perhaps we can explore this) that it should be made clear that this clause need not necessarily apply where the widow is not the mother of the child: where, for instance, there has been a child, who is still an infant, of an earlier marriage and the widow is the widow of a second marriage. It is an important provision. As I have said, I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time in dealing with it any further to-day.
With regard to Clause 20, I would say that this clause, and the subsequent clauses, were all clauses which would have been in a Conservative Government's Bill if it had rested with us to introduce it. I am sure that it is a wise thing to revive this ancient procedure. One of the difficulties will be that there will be no practitioners who have any real experience of operating it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will do what lies in his power

523
to draw this procedure to the notice of practitioners, because I believe that it will work satisfactorily and may be far better, from everybody's point of view, than the alternative of bankruptcy proceedings.
My Lords, I do not think that I have struck an entirely non-controversial note this afternoon. I certainly had not intended to be as controversial as I have been. I should like to conclude by joining in supporting this measure, and by saying that, so far as we can, we will assist its passage to the Statute Book; although that does not mean that we may not have questions to raise, to which we shall hope to receive satisfactory answers, in the course of the Committee stage.

SOUTH AFRICA: ARMS EMBARGO
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on arms for South Africa. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have decided to impose an embargo on the export of arms to South Africa.
"Since the Government took office no licences for the export of arms to South Africa have been issued. It has now been decided that all outstanding licences should be revoked, except where these are known to relate to current contracts with the South African Government. The contract to supply 16 Buccaneer aircraft is still under review.
"Outstanding commitments by the Ministry of Defence will be fulfilled, but as from to-day no new contracts will be accepted for the supply of military equipment. The Ministry of Defence will proceed with manufacturing agreements that have already been concluded but not yet executed.
"Licences for the export of sporting weapons and ammunition will be revoked and shipment will be stopped forthwith. In other cases when licences are revoked, fresh licences will be issued to the extent necessary to permit the execution of current contracts.
524
"These decisions bring the Government's policy into line with United Nations resolutions on this question, the latest of which was the Security Council resolution of June 18."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is hardly necessary for me to say that this is a very serious Statement indeed. The consequences will undoubtedly be very far-reaching, and I very much doubt whether any of us here this afternoon can foresee what these consequences will be and how far all this will go. It is very difficult, just on the spur of the moment, to see exactly what the Statement means. In one part the Statement talks of revoking licences, but it goes on to say that existing licences will be fulfilled. Could the noble Earl the Leader of the House let us know exactly what amount is involved, and what weapons are involved, in this revocation? It may be that we shall have to have a debate on this subject in the very near future. It probably would be better to arrange this through the usual channels.
I should like to ask the noble Earl this question. Have the Government really weighed up the consequences of what they have done? It may he, for instance, that the Simonstown Agreement will be revoked. This means that the Royal Navy will be deprived of refuelling and other facilities at Simonstown, and that the world-wide communications of the Royal Navy may be disrupted. Do the Government view that possibility with equanimity?—the noble Lord shakes his head. There is an important wireless station at Simonstown.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I did not shake my head.
LORD CARRINGTON: No; the noble Lord on the noble Earl's right shook his head. But I was asking: do the Government view with equanimity the possibility that the Royal Navy will lose facilities at Simonstown? It seems quite likely that the noble Earl may reply that this will happen only if the sixteen Buccaneers are cancelled. May I ask him when we are likely to have a statement about these Buccaneers? The longer this issue is in doubt, the more difficult our relations with South Africa may become. It may be that over-flying rights which we now have, in conjunction with the South African Government,

525
by courtesy of the South African Government, may be denied to us. This means that in certain instances we shall find it more difficult to reinforce our troops in South-East Asia and the Far East. Are the Government prepared to put all this at risk in order to deny South Africa arms—arms which are to be used for their defence, and not for purposes of enforcing apartheid?
Recently the Government have not hesitated to stress the gravity of the balance-of-payment; situation. Is it not rather unhelpful flat they should, by this action, prejudice our very large ex port trade to South Africa? If the Buccaneers are cancelled, an order worth something like £80 million will be lost to the export trade of this country. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to answer some of these questions this afternoon, but it may be that we shall have to have a debate in the near future; because, I say again, this is one of the gravest Statements we have heard in this Parliament.
LORD REA: My Lords——
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Perhaps I might answer the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, at once, and then defer to the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I quite agree that this is a serious Statement, and I am sure that the Government would not wish to minimise it in any way. I think the noble Lord will do the Government the justice of believing that they would not have made this Statement without very careful thought. I must ask him to accept that, as I hope he will.
There was one point he raised which I cannot answer precisely, but I feel that I should attempt to say something about it. He asked me, if I understood him rightly, what would be the value of arms shipments to South Africa. I gather that it is not the practice of the Government, as the noble Lord, from his ministerial experience, is aware, to disclose details of arms supplies to overseas Governments. But the value of our arms shipments to South Africa is very small in relation to our total export trade. I am afraid that I cannot answer that point precisely.
But, to deal with the more general issues which were raised by the noble Lord (and if he chooses to initiate a debate on this, it is entirely for him and his colleagues), I should like to make it
526
plain that this, for us, is a moral issue. There is, in the first place, the question of whether the decision is right, and then there is the question of whether it will do this country much immediate damage. There are two questions there which go together. It is perhaps worth observing that, according to my information, our very distinguished representative, Sir Patrick Dean, voted in the United Nations, on the instruction of the former Tory Government, for the resolution prohibiting the export of arms to South Africa.
LORD CARRINGTON: But he made a specific reservation, as I think the noble Earl knows—and I know he does not wish to be unfair: that we should continue to supply South Africa with arms for purposes of her defence, not for purposes of supporting apartheid.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: As the noble Lord is well aware, it is extremely difficult to draw the line. There is the moral question. It is not a question on which one can speak with absolute freedom, because all of us in this House, in different ways and in different degrees, perhaps, strongly disapprove of very much that is going on in South Africa. It becomes a question of how far one carries that disapproval. If we wish to be loyal to the United Nations, we have to carry it a considerable way. But there is also the question of the immediate damage. One cannot calculate the long-term balance of gain and loss, but there is the question of immediate damage.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised certain points. He asked about the Simonstown Agreement. I am advised that that Agreement is certainly a considerable convenience, both to us and to South Africa. It is not essential to our national defence. I am entitled to say that on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord has had many years at the Admiralty—I have had only a few months, but I have been First Lord of the Admiralty. Therefore I do not make that sort of remark on advice without any kind of consideration of the issues at all. Our advice is that it is not essential, but it is a very considerable convenience.
Let us assume that it would be a loss, though I hope that would not arise. There is no reason to suppose that it

527
would arise, but, if it did arise, and if this were really a moral issue, we should have to face it. I am afraid that I must put it in that way. In our view, the losses can be undertaken, if they must be. This is a clear moral issue and, in our view, we should be betraying the United Nations and its ideals—I must state the view of the Government—if we failed to carry out this resolution.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Earl did not answer one of my questions. Perhaps he cannot answer it this afternoon, but I should like him to try, because I think it is of the greatest importance. When will the Government be in a position to make a statement about the 16 Buccaneers which are ordered by the South African Government? I think I am right in saying that they have an option on a further 20 Buccaneers. The whole of the Simonstown Agreement, and possibly our over-flying rights, may, for all I know, revolve on this question of the Buccaneers and not on the Statement which has been made. I think this is rather unlikely, but I am sure it is very important that this matter should be cleared up. When will the noble Earl be in a position to make a statement?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is an important issue and a difficult issue, at any rate in the light of our approach to these problems. I can only assure the noble Lord that we will inform the House as soon as possible, and I should hope to inform the noble Lord even earlier. I should hope that the very first moment we knew anything definite, we would inform the noble Lord.
LORD REA: My Lords, in view of the general opinion in this country that the South African Government is what The Times has called an "evil Government", I am a little surprised that even members of the Conservative Party do not see that this moral gesture has a great deal behind it. The point is not how much we are going to lose—and that matter is still nebulous in the Statement which the noble Earl has just made: the contract for Buccaneer aircraft is still under review. But is it not a fact that aircraft delivered for defence purposes could be turned to exactly the sort of
528
purposes which we do not want to encourage?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what seems a general attitude of support, and for, at any rate, an understanding of our own attempt at a moral approach. I think the Buccaneers raise a difficult question, because a contract is involved there. One may, therefore, have to pit good against good or, if the noble Lord puts it the other way, evil against evil. This is a very difficult issue and I quite agree with the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl two questions? First of all, have the Government had any consultation or discussion with the Government of the Republic of South Africa before coming to these very serious conclusions? The second question, which perhaps I may put as my noble and gallant friend Lord Alexander of Tunis and I negotiated the Simonstown Agreement, is this. Is it not a fact that the Simonstown Agreement not only covers the use of Simonstown by the British Navy, but also puts at the disposal of ourselves and our Allies what is far more important—that is, all the ports of South Africa in the event of war? Have the Government considered what would be the effect of losing that agreement and all that it entails in the event of an aggressive war taking place?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the answer to the first question of the noble Earl is that I have no advice about the consultations, or otherwise, with the South African Government. My impression is that they were not consulted, but I do not know. I understand that they have been informed, but my impression is that they were not consulted, because, in a sense, in the case of a decision of this kind, you either do it or do not do it. I am afraid you cannot expect——
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Is that the way in which we are going to treat all our Allies?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid, to be quite frank, that a number of decisions have been taken in the last few weeks which the noble Earl may or may not like, but which, on the whole, have been approved by the country. In fact, consultation with many countries

529
affected by the 15 per cent. surcharge was impossible. So that if the noble Earl wishes to ask, "Were they consulted?", my impression is that they were not consulted, but certainly, to the best of my belief, they were informed.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, my noble friend may take it from me that many of us with long experience in Ministerial control of defence policy would certainly not regard Simonstown as not being of any great strategic importance. I could not say, after my experience in the last war and in charge of the Admiralty right through it, that I could support that belief. In the event of warfare breaking out, it is extremely difficult to forecast in which particular area the demands upon your defence departments will appear to be greatest at any given time. The then existing agreements were most valuable to us in the last war. Of course, what goes with Simonstown is that, in the event of conflict, we should have equally free use of Durban as we had in the last great conflict. If we were not in a sufficiently friendly relationship at the time, we should find the length of voyages, especially for troop transportation and matters of that sort, much more difficult, if we had always to go right round to other places.
I do not know enough about the decisions which the Government have taken to understand them fully yet. But I do beg—and all of us on this side of the House entirely support our Prime Minister, when he said last night at Mansion House that he was concerned always for the defence of this country and its people—that these things should not be taken in any sense lightheartedly. Simonstown is of great value to us for naval use. I say that after, perhaps, having charge of defence department is for a longer continuous, consecutive time than any of my colleagues in the House on either side, and at a particular period. I suggest that we should not be quite so lighthearted about Simonstown, or about any other part of that great strategic area which was absolutely essential to us when, for various reasons, not excluding air power, the Middle East was denied to us.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I answer the noble Earl? Of course, anything that is said by the noble Earl,
530
Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has special claims not only on the attention of all of us who have followed him so long and so devotedly here, but on the attention and respect of the whole House. His experience, indeed, is unique. I should be sorry—but one never knows what impression one creates—if anything I said suggested that I took this matter lightheartedly. I really cannot imagine how any words of mine—one can never be sure of one's manner—can have given any such impression.
I said at once that this is an important matter, to which the Government have been giving very careful thought. The words I used, on advice, were that these facilities, which we certainly have not lost yet, by any means, are not essential. That is not the same thing as saying that they are not important. In other words, they would not jeopardise the essential defences of the country about which the Prime Minister spoke last night. That must be absolutely clear. But, going beyond that, I want to repeat to noble Lords that if we think this is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, says, we may have to face a certain element of sacrifice. I am not saying there is no loss involved. If a thing is right there may have to be some sacrifice. I do not want to give noble Lords the impression that we can always be sure of having it both ways; that we can do the right thing without any loss to ourselves. I should be very sorry indeed if anybody in the House, particularly the noble Earl, were to get the impression that we took this matter lightheartedly.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is not a fact, in experience, that economic embargoes are worse than useless unless they are complete and watertight? In this case it is as certain as anything can be that the South Africans will be able to obtain from some other source 90 per cent. of the arms which we refuse them. If that happens, then I feel sure that we shall be weakening the citizens of South Africa of British descent in their attempt to bring pressure on their Government to change the policy which we all deplore; and I very much regret to see an embargo imposed, for the sake of salving consciences here, which is going to make it more difficult and not more easy to change the policy of that Government.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am rather sorry to hear the noble Viscount pouring a certain scorn on the idea of salving one's conscience. I should have thought it was one's duty to act according to one's conscience. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but I am afraid I cannot give way to his view of morals there. If this is in accordance with our conscience, we must do it. But it is not a trade embargo. The noble Viscount may or may not be aware of the proposals—there has not been much time to study them—but it is not a trade embargo in the sense he seems to have in mind.
4.13 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, the issues involved in this are of such deep value, and the moral issues have been quoted so much to-day, that I think that one voice, at least, might be permitted from the Back Benches, and that we should not leave moral issues to be a matter solely for Front Bench decision. They are matters on which we claim an equal right to have views. When I say that I have listened with horrified distaste to this Statement this afternoon, that is putting it very mildly. If ever there was an instance of intolerant prejudice finding expression in intemperate action, this is it. Has nobody considered what are the true interests of the people of South Africa? Are they likely to be furthered by this kind of interference from outside? And, my Lords, since when have decisions of the United Nations had the force of Holy Writ? Since when—and we know how some of those decisions are arrived at—have we decided that we will have our foreign policy dictated to us by decisions at the United Nations?
I shall have the opportunity of saying much more when the debate on this matter, which I hope will come, takes place, but I feel that it would have been a mistake if a strong protest (I almost said a violent protest) had not been made from the Back Benches of this House to show that at least there is a very strong opinion which protests at this kind of attempt to bully another country by external interference with its internal policies. If ever there was a threat to the peace of mankind, my Lords, this is the kind of thing that is.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord (I do not think it was really in dispute) that someone who sits on the Back Benches is as much entitled to express his conscience as anybody who sits on the Front Benches. On that, certainly, there is no argument. But I think it ought to be quite plain that the United Nations, and not just this country, have adopted this policy.
The Security Council, in the resolution I mentioned, called upon the Government of South Africa to abandon the policies of apartheid and discrimination, and to liberate all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed the policy of apartheid; they solemnly called upon all States to cease forthwith the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition of all types and military vehicles to South Africa; and requested the Secretary-General to keep the situation under observation and report back. That is the attitude of the Security Council, and it is, broadly speaking, the attitude of the Free World. So I hope that the noble Lord will not assume that it is just some peculiar idiosyncracy of Her Majesty's Government. It is an expression of the opinion of the Free World.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the South African Government had not been consulted. Can he say, in view of the immense importance of this decision to the whole of the Free World, whether the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand were consulted?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have not that information by me. Of course, as the noble Lord is aware, a number of States, including the United States, have already put this policy into operation; but I cannot inform the noble Lord, offhand, which countries within the Commonwealth, if any, have been consulted.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask one more question on the moral issue, because I want to clear my mind, so far as possible? I gather that this resolution of the United Nations has very great importance in the view of Her Majesty's Government. Do I understand that the equally strong resolutions on the subject of Hungary, which are still

533
being disobeyed by the Communist world, have no moral importance and involve Her Majesty's Government in no consequential duties?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is taking us rather far afield in asking us to share some responsibility for the conduct of the Communist world. If the noble Lord will tell us how to put right the situation in Hungary, no one will be more grateful than I shall be.
VISCOUNT MONSELL: My Lords, will the Government study the results of the last time the Government put sanctions on a foreign country due to Left Wing prejudice and pressure? It was a total fiasco in 1935, when we put sanctions on Italy. It resulted in Mussolini being thrown into the arms of Hitler, and made the last world war possible.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I might be tempted to make too hot a reply to that suggestion, but I think there are many of us who regard the betrayal of collective security at that time as one of the main events leading up to the war; so I am not exactly with the noble Viscount in his line of thought. But I think that to call this Left Wing prejudice, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Viscount, would be somewhat fantastic. This is the opinion of the United Nations; and the United States, which is hardly a country of Left Wing intellectuals, has in fact already taken these steps.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he i aware how bitterly this decision will be resented by the workers in the shipbuilding, aircraft, armaments and engineering industries, who have already had a taste of the Government's medicine over contracts for Spain and Portugal? May I ask him, also, whether he is aware that already all over the country engineering firms are reporting a falling off of orders as a result of animosity engendered by the Government's attitude, not only towards South Africa, Spain and Portugal, but also towards the Scandinavian Powers?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, are the Government aware that, irrespective, perhaps, of
534
some of the details of the Statement that has been made to-day, the Statement made will greatly hearten many people in this country as a resolute attempt to carry out the intention, not only of themselves but of their predecessors, not to export to South Africa arms which may be used for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I must not attempt to evaluate the respective weight of the opinions of noble Lords, but if there is one noble Lord whose opinion brings moral sustenance it is the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. May I just answer the noble Lord, Lord Colyton? Whether this is going to be popular with aircraft workers I have no means of knowing.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have no means of knowing; but if noble Lords think they are so successful in an election, then they must do better next time than they did last time. But, at any rate, that is not quite the footing on which we are approaching this question. This is not a search for popularity: this is an attempt to do right, and I am very glad to think that noble Lords who come to this matter somewhat dispassionately—the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party and the most reverend Primate—have supported our policy in outline very strongly.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but I feel that I should do so, in view of something which the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party said. I do not know whether he meant to imply it, but he seemed to me to imply that those of us who sit on these Benches condoned a Government which supported a policy of apartheid. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not. We have adopted exactly the policy on which the most reverend Primate has just congratulated the Government. This was exactly our policy and not the policy of noble Lords opposite. We have said that we would not export to South Africa arms which could be used for the purposes of enforcing the policy of apartheid. That is where we stood, and that is how we voted in the United Nations. I am very glad to hear the most reverend Primate

535
agrees that this was the right policy. What I am saying, however, is that we do not believe that it is sensible to base your trade policy on a policy of trading only with those with whom you agree. If the Government go on like this, there may be many people in the world who are not prepared to trade with the Government of noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Lord, this is not a trade embargo: the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was going outside the proposal in suggesting that it was. He argued that the most reverend Primate, if he had really understood the issues, would have supported the late Government instead of us. I am afraid that I must leave that to the most reverend Primate to decide. He has, in fact, issued very encouraging words in our favour this afternoon. I can hardly believe that he would have done so if he had not understood what he was saying.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
4.21 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the temperature is now reduced to normal, so we might go back to the Administration of Justice Bill. I should like first of all to congratulate the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack on having introduced his first measure in such admirable terms. This is not an easy Bill to follow. I myself have tried to understand it, but until I heard the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's explanation of it I did not really get to the point of understanding what was the main purpose of this Bill.
It is, of course, unfortunate that when people want to understand what this Bill is about and try to interpret it they will not he able to use the noble and learned Lord's speech here in evidence. Certainly, if any question arises on the Bill it will stand or fall on the language of the Bill itself. I do not want to pursue this, because I said something of this kind in my speech last Wednesday in connection with the gracious Speech. But I hope that it will be possible to resolve
536
this difficulty so that when one comes to try to interpret the Bill one will be able to get such help in interpreting it as may be available without having to try to understand the necessarily complicated and difficult language in which a Bill of this kind is phrased.
I understand that the main, though not the only, purpose of this Bill is to deal with a difficulty which has arisen over the years—namely, the difficulty of money in court depreciating in value to the detriment of the person on whose behalf the money has been placed. I am content to accept the fact that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack believes that it will do so, that his predecessor accepts it also and that the Bill is based upon a Report of another noble and learned Lord who is now sitting in this Chamber. But I would repeat that if one tried to ascertain this for oneself by reading the Bill, one could never come to that conclusion.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, told us, there is not very much in the Bill that is controversial. I, too, find myself in some difficulty about Clause 19. I understand fully the objection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, made to the clause, but I am not even sure that I come eventually to his conclusion. As I understand it, money may be paid into court on behalf of a widow either for herself alone or for herself and dependent children. Sometimes there is a separate award for the dependent children. As the clause stands, I think it operates in either case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, eventually came to the conclusion that he could accept Clause 19, because the money paid into court to a widow with children also included a certain amount for the maintenance of the children. It may not always be so; the children may have been awarded separate amounts on their own account.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, I think it is the practice to award separate amounts. But it is also the practice in such cases to award a substantial part to the widow having regard to the fact that there are children as well.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to argue this too closely just now, but I did want to show what was my own difficulty. I think, as I am at present

537
advised—and nobody wants to be dogmatic over matters of this kind—that I should prefer to take the risk and let the widow have the amount of money which she has been awarded in the same way as if she were a spinster or as if she had no children. But I think we could deal with that mere adequately on the Committee stage. There may be instances where a widow has been awarded a sum of money and has a child of one year of age, and she may have to wait for twenty years before she can utilise the money that has been awarded to her unless she can satisfy some official of the court that she needs the money for some good purpose. I am not sure that that is the right approach in the case of a woman who has been awarded a sum of money.
There is only one other thing that I should like to say and, again, it is on the form of the Bill. It is, of course, inevitable that where you provide for the repeal of a number of Statutes and for the amendment of others, the provisions for the amendments appear at first sight to be obscure to the person who reads them. For instance, I see that there are 24 amendments to the Land Clauses Act, 1845. I have no doubt that the Land Clauses Act, 1845, needs amending, but this strikes me as a very cumbersome and inconvenient way to do it. It almost amounts to a revision of the whole Act. To the legal practitioner it must be most inconvenient to have to look up, perhaps in a few years' time, the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, to find out what, if any, amendment has been made to the Land Clauses Act, 1845. There are an enormous number of Acts that have been repealed, and i t is difficult to know later on whether these Acts are in existence or not. I would ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to give very special consideration to this question of repeals and amendments, and to see that they are done in a way which is fairly convenient for the practitioner both at the Bar and in my own branch of the profession.
It is not always easy to ascertain whether or not a particular provision now has legal force. There may be some way to overcome this. For instance, is it possible to reprint the Land Clauses Act, 1845, in the way in which it will
538
be in force after this Bill becomes law? That may not be a practicable suggestion, but I would appeal to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to give some consideration to this problem because it is a problem for practitioners in both sides of the law. Subject to that, I am sure that this Bill is a good Bill. It is submitted under the most excellent auspices. It is almost a bipartisan Bill, and I hope that it will soon come into law.
4.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, to take up this debate after the excitement which we have just been having is rather like coming to the tapioca pudding course after a hot Madras curry in the early stage of a repast. Probably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, would not particularly welcome any congratulations from me for having got this Bill ready, but I certainly think he deserves congratulation.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord thinks that. I should welcome any congratulations the noble Lord might give to me at any time.
LORD CHORLEY: This is the first time I have spoken in the same debate as the noble Lord, when I have had the pleasure to find him agreeing with me. My criticism of the noble and learned Lord and his Government would be that they took much too long to bring this in. The Pearson Committee were appointed early in 1957 and issued their Report about twelve months later, which was a very smart pace, and we had to wait five or six years for the Bill—and even then the noble and learned Lord's Government did not bring it in. We have brought it in, and I think that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack is entitled to a great deal of congratulation for having taken the initiative and for having given us this Bill as our first piece of legislative work in this Session.
I would add my own personal appreciation of the work that was done by Sir Colin Pearson and his Committee. It was an expeditious piece of work. All those who have had the friendship of that distinguished lawyer and know well his command of details his judicious approach to these problems and particu-

539
larly, perhaps, his sympathy for the underdog in litigation and in the world at large, would expect from any Committee over which he presided a Report of this value.
If I may, I would refer to one passage in the Report as symptomatic of his outlook. He deplored the continuance in some county courts of the inquiries into widows' means in open court. When I was a young barrister, that was pretty well universal, but during the intervening years it has become much less general. A judge usually has the parties visit his room. Especially in small country towns, where so many of these county courts are, an open inquiry is very embarrassing to litigants. I mention this point only as being symptomatic of the sympathetic outlook of this distinguished lawyer, which those who have known him since his early days at the Bar would expect to find in the Report of a Committee over which he presided.
It must have given great pleasure to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to present even this Bill, because, although it does not make the radical reforms in the law which we are all expecting to have under his occupancy of the Woolsack, it makes important proposals. Two types of matters are dealt with. One copes with the inflation which has been allowed to run on in this area of legal administration far too long, and, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, has had serious financial repercussions on many young people, and on older people as well.
It is significant that this should have come so late in the day. Trustees under the Trustee Acts, who were finding it very difficult to provide reasonable in- comes for their beneficiaries, were given power a number of years ago to begin investing in equities. The private sector comes first. Those who, in effect, are wards of the community have had to wait until now. Even after the Pearson Committee had worked so quickly to bring out this admirable Repot t, it will be six years before their recommendations are passed into law.
The Bill also introduces a number of reforms in the law which are desirable and long overdue. Obviously, these reforms should be brought before Par-
540
liament and carefully and properly canvassed before they are passed into law and become operative. The first reform, which merely brings the legal position into line with the inflationary conditions that have grown up in this country over the last years, ought not to require a Pearson Committee every time. There ought to be some permanent machinery. Over the last few years Parliament has had Bill after Bill—to put up fines from 40s. to £10, or whatever it may be; to put up the limitation in an action against a shipowner whose ship has caused damage; to deal with all sorts of grievances arising from inflation, very often very late in the day, which have been quite obvious to everybody for a long time.
There ought to be some permanent machinery and I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord did glance at this problem, in passing, and suggested that, instead of having to wait for ten or fifteen years for another Pearson Committee and another Bill, some machinery might be established by which, if inflation goes on, from time to time the situation can be put right. Two or three years ago, in the Merchant Shipping Act, which brought £15 per ton of shipping into relation with the modern world, the Minister of Transport was given power to review the situation from time to time, and to establish a new ceiling when it was required. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will pursue this matter and evolve some machinery which will enable alterations to be made at the proper time.
This Bill not only deals with the particular difficulty of funds in court but also in Clause 20, which has been referred to by more than one speaker, brings the £50 minimum debt for a bankruptcy petition into relation with the requirements of the modern world. It is really quite ridiculous that a man can be made bankrupt on the basis of a £50 debt. That was no doubt all right at the time of Queen Victoria, but that this should continue until 1964 and be left to this particular Bill to put right is quite ridiculous. The threat of bankruptcy is a very strong form of blackmail, and it is very easy for a man to be in debt for £50. I doubt very much whether the sum of £100 provided in the Bill is high enough and there will be time in Committee stage to put this up to £200 or £300.

541
I think that everybody will agree that the proposal of the Pearson Committee, which has now been more widely extended in this Bill, that all these sums should be paid into one fund and the fund properly invested in the light of a modern investment policy, which has been used in all sorts of other spheres of economic activities over the last years, is a very proper one. I agree that the Public Trustee is the obvious person to be entrusted with the charge of this onerous and quite difficult public duty. No doubt, as one would expect, he will take expert advice in the investment of the fund, but what I am a little worried about is that he is not required to do so. I think that it might be well to tighten that up. It might be possible to give the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or some other Minister, the power to issue some sort of regulations or directions, specifying the sort of advice the Public Trustee should take.
I happen to be very much concerned with one of the largest national charities, which has funds going into millions of pounds and which was for a long time, like so many other charities, very much handicapped by the strait-waistcoat of the old trustee investment arrangements. Now, of course, we are much freer. But we have benefited enormously from the expert advice of one of the best investment firms in the City of Lot-Icon. I am sure that other noble Lords know much more about these matters than I do, but it is astonishing what a difference that can make to the prosperity of a national charity. If you get—as you can quite easily, because we have them in the organisation I am thinking about—really knowledgeable people from the City who come up and form a finance committee, they will discuss these matters with the investment experts in the City——
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may not be aware that the Public Trustee has a high-powered advisory committee on investment policy consisting of eminent people in the City.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. I prefaced these observations with the remark that I had no doubt that the Public Trustee did take advice. What I was anxious about was that it should be stated in the Bill that he
542
should be advised in this way. It is sometimes as well in an Act of Parliament not to rely entirely on the discretion of a particular public official.
The other matter on which I should like to say a word is the question of the control of widows' damages. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say that this was still, to him, a rather open question. It is obviously a difficult question. I hope that an Amendment will be put down on the Committee stage which will enable us to have a full debate on this problem. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that the Law Society, representing the solicitors, were in favour of retaining the present arrangement. But, as the Pearson Committee points out, the Managing Clerks' Association, who presumably have the same sort of experience, as the solicitors themselves, or possibly even more, take the other view. It may be that some sort of compromise could be reached by which the widow without children would be prima facie entitled to have the money, unless for good reason the judge who handled the case directed that an investigation should be made and a possible qualification applied.
Many people who have had a good deal of experience of matters of this sort take the view that the mere fact that women are controlled in this way, while men are not, is in itself a factor in building up habits of mind which enable them to be cheated: that they would not be cheated so much if they were not coddled. That is obviously a point of view to which attention ought to be given. It must be very irksome and upsetting to many women to feel that they are being treated in this way, whereas men are not. After all, there are many men who are not capable of looking after substantial sums of money which they may obtain in actions at law; who are equally as feckless and unable to take sensible financial decisions as any woman.
I have often thought that it would be useful (perhaps the Lord Chancellor would consider this suggestion in connection with this law reform programme) if we introduced the status of spendthrift, which is known in a number of Continental systems—in France, for example. Where, from experience in the family and among friends, it is

543
found that a man or woman is, without being non compos mentis, incapable of looking after his or her finances in a sensible and sound way, he or she can, in effect, be subjected to a certain amount of control under the status of a spendthrift. Such a system could be introduced here, both for men and women, and could perhaps be applied to an elderly widow who has had no experience. A spinster, after all, usually gains a certain amount of experience in looking after her own affairs. But the rather elderly woman who is likely to be involved in a case of this kind has often had no experience, because the husband has attended to all the financial matters; and therefore she is to a larger extent at the mercy of sharks and people who come round and try to sell her bankrupt businesses and that sort of thing.
There are obviously on both sides difficult and important problems to be solved before we finally reach a decision on this matter. If we could find some sort of compromise, going a little further towards the protection of these women than the present Bill goes, then I, for one, should be glad to help in working it out. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage we may be able to improve this Bill in the way I have indicated.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies, I should like to ask a question. Clause 24 provides that Chancery registrars shall now be qualified to become Chancery masters. I wish to ask whether it is now to be primarily from the ranks of Chancery registrars that Chancery masters should be selected.
4.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have had an interesting short discussion, and I should like to say at the outset, in reply, how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, for the tribute he paid to the Public Trustee. I am sure that it is well deserved. I think the reason why it is not anticipated that this work will add anything substantial to the staff of the Public Trustee is because in the ordinary case the Public Trustee is a trustee of a particular settlement: he has to consider its terms and the position of the beneficiaries; and there may be other trustees
544
as well. But what he will do here is to constitute and carefully supervise one or more unit trusts. As has been made plain, the only shareholder will be the Accountant General, and therefore he will not be concerned with matters of detail. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the Public Trustee does not act without advice. He has an honorary investment advisory committee, which includes stockbrokers, bankers and managers of investment trust companies, all of whom are well-known people of the highest standing in the City. So far as Clause 19 is concerned, we will certainly take into account the two points which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, was good enough to raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also raised two points. The first was a point that he raised recently in your Lordships House—namely, that it seems unreasonable to expect a judge to understand what an Act is supposed to be doing when he is not told anything about it but is simply given the Act to read. I have some sympathy with that point of view. What we do, in this country is, of course, most unusual. In nearly every European system of law the first thing that happens when an Act of Parliament is passed is that the Government issues a White Paper explaining what the Act is intended to do, and the reasons which have led to its being passed. But here, when a judge has to construe an Act, this is the first thing at which he looks. The one thing he is not allowed to know is why the Act was passed, or what it is supposed to do. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who does not think that that is very sensible. In fact, sometimes the courts almost seem to take a delight in so construing an Act of Parliament as to produce exactly the opposite result to what we all know Parliament in fact intended. I have always thought that a construction of Acts of Parliament ought really to be a sort of partnership between Parliament and the courts—the object of the courts being so to construe an Act as to give effect to what Parliament intended.
It is almost accidental that we act as we do, because the old Preamble was like the sort of White Paper which most countries issue. Indeed, as your Lordships know, some of the Preambles of the old Acts are extremely interesting from an

545
historical point of view. I remember the Preamble to the Act which deals with Gretna Green. It explains in detailed horror all the awful things that used to go on at Gretna Green, exactly what the blacksmith did, and how essential it was that this should be put a stop to. It is because we have no Preamble that the judges are no longer allowed to know what Parliament's real reason was.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the question of repeals, and the general way in which Acts can he amended and amended, and the difficulty which even lawyers have in finding out what the effect of some later amendments in other Acts are. There, again, personally I entirely agree with the noble Lord. As we know, the Statute Book is in the unfortunate position that amendments and amendments are made by later Acts, and to look at one subject only you may have to look at 60 different Acts of Parliament which amend and amend one another. It may be that ultimately we shall reach a stage in which we do not allow any Acts to be amended, but that when we want to amend an Act we repeal it and re-enact it with the proposed amendment. In that way we should always have one Act of Parliament, and one only, dealing with any one subject.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, may I point out that £50 is not raised to £100; it is raised to £250 which, I am told, is a little more, if anything, than a figure which corresponds to what £50 was.
LORD CHORLEY: Is that the same as presenting a petition in bankruptcy? I thought it was £100 in that case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was referring to the administration order. It may well be—and again, I sympathise with him when he expressed the view
546
—that it should be possible to devise some way in which financial figures in Acts of Parliament may be varied other than by an Act of Parliament. I think I have suggested that, in effect, myself.
Then, with regard to the Chancery master or district registrar, the object 6f Clause 24 is to enable a Chancery or district registrar to be appointed a Chancery master, and a district or county court registrar to he appointed a taxing master. At the moment, eligibility of the appointment is limited, because under the present provisions he must be a practising solicitor of not less than ten years standing, and one of the difficulties is that a young man may become a district registrar before he has practised for that period. What is desired is to enlarge the qualifications so that a wider choice may be made. How the choice will be made must depend on the circumstances of the particular case.
I, too, hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that an Amendment will be put down with regard to widows' damages, so that the matter may be discussed at the Committee stage. If somebody likes to put down a "spendthrift" Amendment of the nature indicated, there would, of course, he no objection. One could perhaps consider that at the same time. But this question of the widow's damages, which is obviously of importance to a substantial number of people, is not at all a political, and still less a Party political, point; it is a matter of opinion. It is just the sort of point on which two heads are better than one, and the sort of point on which it is unlikely that if it is considered by a substantial number of your Lordships in Committee, they would be wrong. I shall await to see what Amendments are put down and the discussion which will then ensue.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ELECTRICITY PYLONS IN AREAS OF NATURAL BEAUTY
4.56 p.m.
LORD EGREMONT LORD EGREMONT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider causing the Central Electricity Board to put underground 400 kV power lines in areas of outstanding natural beauty. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence. This is the first time that I have addressed your Lordships. Until recently, and for twenty years or more, I was what some people call a "back room boy", and in those circumstances one was seldom seen and even more seldom heard. Therefore, it is with more than ordinary diffidence that I address your Lordships this evening.
I do not wish to inject anything of a politically controversial nature into this Question. What I should like to do is to inject some common sense. I once raised this question with the predecessor of the present Minister of Power. I was met with a look like a stone wall with broken glass on top. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal in the human breast. What I am talking about are pylons 160 feet high, which is only a few feet less than the height of Nelson's Column. They would be twice the size of pylons which your Lordships have known, and disliked, before.
What I have particularly in mind are fifteen miles of West Sussex—fifteen miles of outstanding natural beauty, over which it is planned to plant these pylons. These pylons, which are 160 feet high, would, so to speak, be passing through; they would be carrying 25 cables from Dungeness to Cornwall. The cables would be very thick. They would form a screen which would sag to about 25 feet off the ground. It is possible that large landscape features elsewhere in the United Kingdom might absorb huge pylons of this size: I do not know, but I suppose it is possible. What I do know is that the West Sussex countryside is small, intimate and beautiful. It cannot absorb these huge pylons. They would stick out as terrible emblems of what a monopoly might successfully do to raddle and ruin the face of the fairest
548
part of Britain, within 60 miles of London.
These huge erections would march across a skyline, and much of the line would be on high or open ground in sight of the Downs and the Rother Valley. For instance, between Lodsworth and Midhurst, the line would be on Or near the summit of the escarpment—at one point about the 400 foot contour line, where pylons and cables would be silhouetted against the skyline and visible all the way from Chanctonbury Ring, fifteen miles to the East, to a corresponding distance to the West. These giant pylons would cross the centre of the open country which constitutes the famous view from the Downs above Harting.
What about the economics of the scheme? These giant pylons, at least 160 feet high, carrying 400,000 volts, would be the biggest pylons one had ever seen. But not for long. The voltage of the super-grid transmission network is expected to be raised to 750,000 volts in the 1970s, needing even more awful, wider, taller towers. It does not bear thinking about—unless we put the lines underground. The plain fact is that to put underground the lines, for example, in these fifteen especially beautiful miles of West Sussex would mean, on the Electricity Board's own figures, an additional cost equivalent to only three-quarters of 1 per cent. of their estimated programme of expenditure up to 1969. I am convinced that the economics could be made more simple and easy if only we got down to tackling the problem really earnestly.
We have here in the Central Electricity Board a monopoly which has given the impression, unwittingly perhaps, that it is a corporation without a conscience to be pricked or a bottom to be kicked, for why cannot these lines go underground? "Oh", they say, "it is far too expensive. If anybody else could suggest a cheaper way of putting the lines underground we might adopt it." So long as we have this buck-passing we shall have bigger and bigger pylons and a more and more horrible Britain. Such an attitude is not distinguished. It is like Euclid's definition of a point: no parts, no magnitude, only a position.
My Lords, is it too expensive? Here are some more figures. I took them from an able article by a Mr. G. C. Gracey in

549
the July issue of Design. To put underground 1 per cent. of future super-grid lines would add no more than one-tenth of 1 per cent. to bulk supply charges. This would cater for most of the cases where visual amenity is a serious concern. If you take into account the conservative nature of financial policy in respect of depreciation, you will find that it would not represent any significantly large expenditure. I apologise for boring your Lordships with these sums, but they are important. I do not expect any definite reply to-day from Her Majesty's Government; but when they study figures such as these I hope they will be agreeably surprised. And these figures do exist. In the meantime, and in any case, in the matter of putting cables underground the Electricity Board are still living in the horse-and-buggy age. You would hardly believe it, but the insulation of underground cables to-day is still the oil insulating paper that was introduced by (I need hardly say) one of the Ferrantis about 1880. Not nearly enough is being done to find alternatives to the overhead by item. It will not be done unless people make a fuss, and I am making a fuss now; and if the Board's wayleave officer asks to see me at Petworth I shall have him thrown down the stairs.
One final word about expense. Delays clue to public inquiries alone can cost from £10,000 to £20,000 a week. if £20,000 were offered as a prize for the best method of reducing the cost of underground cables by 10 per cent. we might be getting somewhere. I do most earnestly suggest to Her Majesty's Government two things: first, that they should cause the Electricity Board to put underground these cables in this most beautiful part of West Sussex, and, secondly, that they should cause research about putting cables underground to be much increased. Well, my Lords, these are some views from the erstwhile back-room boy. I only hope that, after Her Majesty's Government have had time to consider them and similar views, they may suddenly start singing:
"See what the boys in the back room will have
And tell them we're having the same."
5.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to support
550
the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on what he has said. I am sure we should all be extremely grateful to him for raising this subject. As your Lordships know, it is his maiden speech in this House—and a very good one too! And, what is more, it has been devoted to a subject with which this House is, I think, particularly fitted to deal because, although it may be regarded as in some ways a controversial subject, it is certainly a non-Party subject and is entirely devoted to saving something of the beauties of this country which are so rapidly disappearing before our eyes.
I do not think we in this country quite realise how quickly these things are being eroded. Not so long ago we had Manchester's assault upon the Lake District which your Lordships who were here at the time will well remember. Then we had a similar proposal as that to which the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, has referred, to run pylons across the beautiful Avon Valley. And now we hear to-day of a similar desecration of one of the loveliest parts of Sussex. If it could be proved to our satisfaction that there is no alternative to this desecration no doubt we should seriously have to consider whether we should be justified in rejecting proposals of this kind: but, so far as I know, no public evidence has been produced that all possible efforts are being made to find some alternative.
These great, powerful public institutions with which we are all now so familiar seem to think it quite unnecessary for them to make any effort to justify their actions to the public. They just issue their fiat and expect the country to accept it without more ado. Nor are we given any idea of their future plans of where all this is going to lead; whether this is the end of the desecration or whether there are further things to come along. They are wrapped in mystery until it is too late for us to make any effective opposition to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, has said, the outlook, if not for us—and some of us are getting quite old now—for our children, does not really bear thinking about.
What I should like to ask the Government to-day is this. Could they not appoint some body, some independent body, to look into matters of this kind and cross-examine the Central Electricity Generating Board and try to find out,

551
first, what their present plans are and, secondly, what their future plans are; and not only to cross-examine them but to publish the results of their cross-examination? The House of Lords is a body which I think is noted for its breadth of mind and independent judgment, and now that this subject has been raised here I do hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will at any rate look further into this and kindred schemes before it is too late, and make a report to this House on what they discover.
5.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is a very pleasant task indeed to join with the noble Marquess in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on his excellent maiden speech, which, I may say, he has made in the presence of his father on the same Bench—something which does not happen very often in this House. I do not know whether the noble Marquess can recall a former occasion, but in my time in your Lordships' House I do not think it has happened before. I also had the great pleasure of sitting with the noble Lord's uncle on Benches on the other side of the House. I remember, too, serving with him in the war in North Africa, and I have therefore become accustomed to his rather special brand of wit—what we might describe as the Wyndham wit. Being a neighbour in Sussex, I felt obliged to say something to support his plea for further consideration of this matter, further consideration before these enormous electricity pylons are allowed to disfigure the beauties of our countryside.
Apart from our declared interest in West Sussex, we should, I think, also consider other parts of the British Isles, not only the Lake District which the noble Marquess mentioned but the Highlands of Scotland and the glorious scenery of Wales. I do not like the charm of our countryside being marred by these what I might describe as rather inferior Eiffel Towers. To-day I see a Derbyshire farmer has been fighting the Generating Board for more than a year over the super-grid it is proposed to run across his land right in front of his house. Scenes which Constable immortalised for us are being spoiled, so that the artists
552
of the future will have to include in their landscapes these large steel, scaffold-like edifices linked together by sagging wires.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that no one wishes to deprive the inhabitants of any part of these Islands of enjoying the benefits of electric power. These should be available to all. It is also essential, if the industrialisation of this country is to spread, as I fear it must, much more evenly to the less well developed areas. I fully recognise that there are many difficulties involved in placing these power lines underground; not the least of these are of course financial. However, I consider it is unfortunate that in this technological age we have not yet been able to evolve a system whereby these cables can be laid underground speedily and at relatively low cost. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, that further research should be undertaken with this end in view.
I believe that the Generating Board do take some trouble over the siting of these pylons. They say they do. But I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is to reply for the Government will at least be able to give us an assurance that they will never be erected without any regard to the scenery which they are spoiling. I hope that in certain areas perhaps for short distances the cables will be put underground, maybe a mile or two, or less, and not necessarily the entire cable. In the case of the area mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, even if the whole 15 miles of cable cannot be put underground perhaps certain parts of it may be; and this would not involve the very great cost of putting longer lengths underground.
The noble Lord has mentioned the towns of Lodsworth and Midhurst, which know well, too, and the view of the Downs above Harting. Such pylons would destroy that glorious country in which, as Belloc said, Chanctonbury is crowned in the middle place. I think, too, of a particularly lovely avenue of beech trees leading to my own home in Sussex at the end of which rises one of these massive constructions, albeit, some three miles away. It might have been better had it been sited in the centre of the avenue, but in fact it is not. I must admit that it would be a great joy if it could be moved, either out of sight or centred more appropriately. The only

553
compensation for mists and bad weather in winter is that it is not then visible.
My Lords, on such occasions as these I remember the eloquence and skill of the late Lord Birkett, who advocated so wisely and strongly that we should progress by protecting lather than by marring the beauty spots of this country. This non-political yet none the less controversial issue is one which I hope your Lordships will earnestly consider, and I am very grateful to my noble friend for having raised it. Your Lordships may remember the word; of Belloc:
"The moon stood over Chanctonbury, so removed and cold in her silver that you might almost have thought her careless of the follies of men."
My Lords, none of us should be careless of what I believe to be our sacred trust.
5.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I should like to add my praise and congratulations on his maiden speech to the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, a very old friend of mine, of whose great abilities and very nimble wit I have been aware for many years. He does not always show it because he is naturally reticent, which I suppose was ingrained in him when he was a back-room boy; but now he is no longer a back-room boy I hope he will come here often and give us the benefit of his opinions and good sneaking, and I hope his noble father will he sitting on his left. I do not know whether your Lordships read an article in the Press the other day criticising a book by the noble Lord, Lord Snow. It showed a great genius for journalism and also a pretty wit. Perhaps he started that when he and my son were co-editors of their school magazine. I am getting rather tired of some of our political writers and I hope he will turn his genius to this line as well.
I sympathise very much with what he says, because I own a 2,000-acre property in a most beautiful corner of Hertfordshire. It is in the Green Belt and one might be in the heart of the country. It really is a lovely part: of natural beauty. The noble Marquess has been there and knows I am not "overbaking the pudding". The Central Electricity Generating Board are going to put pylons clean across my farm and the farms of my neighbours, starting this summer. They will not be as big as the ones my noble friend Lord Egremont talks about, but the
554
concrete bases will be 17 feet in diameter. It is a considerable handicap to my farm. My farm is one of a thousand acres there, and in the interests of good husbandry I have taken out a great many hedges to enable me to reap and sow more quickly than I did. But now, with these things, it will be a case of "dodgem" round the pylons at great cost in labour.
I know it is a difficult position. I know that the actual underground burying of cables is nothing difficult with present machinery; it costs practically nothing at all. I am not to benefit, by the way, from these pylons that go across my land; they are to boost the electricity supply from Watford to Chesham. They are not helping me, and I still have several cottages on my property where there is no electricity. But I understand cables have to be buried in oil-impregnated tubes. I did not know until I heard my noble friend Lord Egremont's speech that that invention was so old. I believe it is very costly; I think it is eight times the cost of putting them overhead. There is nothing I can do about it. I signed my agreement last week, doing it hatefully, not wanting to do it in the least degree, but not wanting to get on the wrong side of the Electricity Board, hoping I shall get some electricity in my cottages.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will give us a full assurance that the Government and its technological departments will look into this matter very closely, and that in this scientific age it will be possible, at a later date, to bury these cables at a reasonable cost and restore the beauty of the Green Belt. After all, what is the use of having a Green Belt if you are going to ruin it by these electricity pylons? You might just as well build houses on it, and the Government might make a little extra money from advertisement hoardings along the road. So I hope they will really get down to work to see what can be done in regard to this matter.
5.21 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I speak again this afternoon, but I think that I have spoken in every one of the debates on this subject over the last fifteen years. As honorary secretary of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and being greatly concerned with these matters, I should like to say how much I agree with what the noble

555
Lord, Lord Egremont, has said, and to congratulate him on using his maiden speech to bring this important matter once more before the House.
I want only to say a few words in support of his plea that this section—after all, it is a short section—of the big Grid line in West Sussex should be put underground. Undoubtedly it will be most expensive, but the late Minister made one or two orders requiring this sort of line to be placed underground. There is the particularly well known case of the line from Derbyshire across South Yorkshire. That was most expensive. The Minister accepted the view that the countryside there was of outstanding beauty, though I do not think it could in that respect be put higher than this countryside in West Sussex. So, with this valuable precedent, I hope that the new Minister will see his way to follow the precedent so admirably set by the Minister who now sits on the other side of the House.
I should like it to be known that we in the amenities movement have a great deal of sympathy with Sir Christopher Hinton and his people. We have to criticise them from time to time, but I am quite sure that he is sensitive to this problem. I have more than once heard him speak on it, and anybody who has heard him could not think that he was other than quite sincerely sympathetic to the view of the amenity societies.
Undoubtedly this is mostly a question of expense. A great deal of trouble has been taken in Sussex to try to find the least objectionable line. The Board are now employing the services of one of the most outstanding amenity planners (if one can use that term) in England, Miss Sylvia Crowe, whose work is known to everybody concerned with these matters and a great deal of trouble and time has been put into the solution of this problem. The difficulty is that it is not soluble on the overhead-line basis, at least over long areas of this beautiful countryside; but in this exceptionally vulnerable section I feel that a strong case has been made out for burying the cable, with, if necessary, a subsidy from central funds. It is only a question of a few miles. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Bess-
556
borough, said about it: obviously, we cannot expect to have the whole length of this line put underground. But we can hope, and, I think, expect from the new Government, that sympathetic consideration will be given to putting a fairly long stretch of the line underground in this particularly vulnerable section of this lovely county.
5.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I want only to ask two questions of the noble Lord who is to reply. I take it that this is really a question of finance, and that no Government, neither the present nor the late Government, would wish to put up pylons if they could possibly put the line underground. On the figures that we have been given, such an enormous difference in cost is shown that it makes it difficult for the Central Electricity Board to carry out such a policy as is now urged except at the expense of putting up their charges, which will hit many people all over the country. But the difficulty I have found, in looking at the figures we have been given (no doubt we shall be given some more) is to know whether they are correct.
I take it, and it cannot be in dispute, that underground cables are a great deal more expensive than pylons. I accept that point. But if you work out what the cost of pylons is going to be, that is only the start of the story. Obviously, you have to deal with maintenance. I have no idea of what sort of figure that amounts to; but structures of this kind obviously have to be repainted, and so on, and the figure involved must be a considerable one.
Then I think of the unfortunate people with houses or cottages, or whatever it may be, who suddenly find themselves and their amenities practically ruined. One may have a small house with a pylon of this size only about 20 or 30 yards from its door. I take it that the value of the house would be halved, and I assume that the owner would have redress in the ordinary course of events. He would also, no doubt, apply for a reduction in the rateable value of the house. I should have thought he would possibly have a good case for redress in respect of the reduced value of the property, and might well ask for compensation. I should be most grateful if, when he comes to reply, the noble Lord

557
opposite could give us some information on what is proposed in that respect, because I think it is immensely important; and, of course, it all adds to the cost of having the pylons.
That is all I have to say, except that I should like to join with other noble Lords who have congratulated Lord Egremont on his excellent speech, which gave no evidence at all of his being an inexperienced "back-room boy". I hope that he will come here and speak to us often in future, and will raise questions of this sort which I think are of great interest to all noble Lords on both sides of the House.
5.28 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, replies, I should like to say that, although I am no expert on these subjects, I cannot feel that the laying underground of cables is so far away. I well remember that when I lived in the depths of the country I had to connect my property with a water main in the village, which was about a mile away. This was done by a method which I had not encountered before. The pipe was attached to the rear of a tractor and was drawn through the ground at a suitable level, rather as a piece of cotton is drawn through a piece of material. I should have thought that methods like that, provided that the ground is soft, could also be used for cables. Of course it is a different matter where one has to cross under roads. It has already been noted that, naturally, not all cables can be put underground, but I think that the Government should give earnest consideration to this question of spoiling both our natural beauty and the amenities of private property, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
Before I sit down I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on his maiden speech. When I compare it with my own, I am filled with envy. I only hope that we shall hear him many times again.
5.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I, too, would join with every other noble Lord who has spoken in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on a most entertaining maiden speech in which his native wit poked through. I am very
558
glad that he now has an opportunity to exercise his talents in public, because I feel that that wit often must have been suppressed when he was serving his twenty years as a back-room boy. Although I would add that it was "some" back room—in fact, it might almost be described as a "power house"; and that, no doubt, is why he has chosen this particular subject for his first essay in your Lordships' House. I am particularly pleased, too, that he has made this speech in the presence of his father. I imagine that this is an occasion which cannot often be repeated because the circumstances would not be so likely to arise again.
My Lords, I am aware that my voice sounds like gravel. I do not know whether my face looks like a wall with broken glass on top, as was the case with a former Minister of Power when he was asked this particular Question. It may not be that I can wholly satisfy the noble Lord, nor indeed any other noble Lord who has spoken so far; but I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on the start which he has made in this House, not only in making his maiden speech, but in taking this particular subject. It is a tribute to the importance of the subject, and no doubt to his own qualities, that, instead of what I had anticipated—that is to say, that the noble Lord would open and that I would close—we have had, I think, eight speeches in this debate. For that I am grateful, and I can give an immediate assurance that my right honourable friend will study the whole debate and pay great heed to what has been said.
One thing I should like to make clear is that, so far as I am aware, everyone, including myself, who has spoken in this debate is a land-owner—I, of course, on a very much smaller scale than the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. I have not 2,000 acres, but, like the noble Earl, I have pylons on my land, and I understand that I shall shortly be giving wayleaves for more pylons. One of the reasons why I am in agreement is that, like the noble Earl, I am anxious to get electricity on to my own small farm in places where it was not before.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that if it could be proved to our satisfaction that there was no alternative

559
to desecration, then we should have to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not quite say "accept it". I said that we should have to consider it very seriously.
LORD STONHAM: It might amount to the same thing. But whether or not I shall prove this to the noble Lord's satisfaction, at least I am going to give the facts as I see them, and it may perhaps give a somewhat different picture from the one that has already been presented. The Central Electricity Generating Board in formulating their proposals, and the Minister in considering them, are under a statutory duty to take into account the effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside. Whenever objections are made to a proposal to construct 400,000-volt lines in an area of outstanding beauty, the possibility of placing at least some part of the lines underground is always considered. But because of the very high cost of placing 400 kV lines underground this can be done only in very exceptional circumstances, and there could be no question of making it, as Lord Egremont asks, the invariable rule in such areas, because the cost would be beyond anything we could contemplate. Each case must therefore he considered strictly on its merits.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked for an assurance that decisions of this kind would never be taken without the most searching inquiry and the most careful consideration of all those kinds of things which have been raised in this debate. This scheme first started, as it were, in a practical way in 1959; there have been searching inquiries going on ever since. The noble Lord, Lord Egremont spoke almost as if there were a degree of unanimity in the area about what should be done in this particular case. But no fewer that nine different schemes have been put forward: the red scheme, the green scheme, the yellow, the purple, the short blue and indeed the long blue, the brown, the minor deviation and the Buriton diversion. Indeed, even the two Inspectors, having picked up pieces of each of those schemes to put into a composite whole, came to the point where they themselves disagreed. Most remarkable
560
reasons have been put forward for objections and suggestions. For example, the Nature Conservancy objected to the green route, particularly where it went through Crimbourne Wood, which was part of a larger area of woodland of considerable scientific interest known as The Mens.
I was asked also about the extent to which advice was taken, and my noble friend Lord Chorley mentioned Miss Sylvia Crowe. She was engaged by the Central Electricity Generating Board to advise on this route; she is a Past President of the Institute of Landscape Architects. Having considered the whole matter, in advising the Board to apply for the red route she was guided by considerations such as these: the views to and from the South Downs; the views from Blackdown and its associated hills and ranges; the effect on local landscapes; the effect on views from individual properties; the use of broken and complex landscapes; the elevation of the ground, and the possible use of tolerance in siting the towers. In the light of such examinations, and the fact that Sir William Holford is a member of the Board and has taken a particular interest in this subject, it cannot be said for one moment that these matters are lightly considered or that the people who make the decision have no regard for amenity. But when one considers these things one realises that a decision has to be reached eventually. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, raised the quite important point about somebody's property being ruined and asked about compensation. There is, I understand, compensation available when value is affected; it is usually settled by negotiation. It could go to the Lands Tribunal if agreement was not reached.
It has been suggested or implied in this debate so far that the only way to save our lovely countryside from desecration is to put lines underground; but a great deal can be done to mitigate the effect of overhead lines on the countryside by careful routing and great care is taken by the Board in making their proposals. The Board consult local planning authorities and so on.
The noble Marquess asked whether the C.E.G.B. could not be instructed to tell us what are their plans for the future

561
and where they are moving. They have consulted county authorities and told them their plans for as far ahead as 1970. That is a continuing process which is going on. They have consulted the National Parks Commission and other interests, and, of course, the Minister in considering all these plans is in consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
However, when one speaks of amenity, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power has to bear in mind that visual amenity, important though it is, is only one of the amenities. It is one of his prime duties to ensure that throughout the country there is a sufficient supply of the important amenity of electricity. Other solutions have been considered; for example, whetter localised generation with fewer transmission lines would not be preferable. But if that solution were adopted, then the number of power station sites which would have to be obtained each year would be very much greater, and the Board's capital cost would be increased by as much as £35 million a year. The smaller stations. which would thus be provided, would be considerably less efficient, and therefore more costly in operation.
The question of cost has been mentioned, and I should like to deal with the implications of adopting the proposal which has been embodied in the noble Lord's Question. The National Parks, and areas of outstanding natural beauty so far designated account together for something like 15 per cent. of the total area of England and Wales. Many places, including the one we are now discussing, have not yet been—although I have no doubt This one will be—designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty. What I am saying is that the areas of such beauty which we want to preserve are considerably more in total than 15 per cent. of the entire land area of England and Wales, so it is a very big thing that we are thinking of.
The C.E.G.B. have planned some 1,200 miles of 400 kV overhead lines to be built by 1970, in the next six years, and there will be more after that. Of course, it is not possible to say what proportion of those 1,200 miles will fall within the designated areas, but it will not be possible to avoid them entirely, especially as con-
562
sumers in and near them want more power.
I must emphasise this point about underground cable being enormously more expensive than overhead lines. For very heavy duty 400 kV lines the cost overhead is about £54,000 a mile, but underground cable to carry the same amount of energy would cost, according to the latest estimate, £1,182,000 a mile. That is 22 times as much. When the Board originally gave their estimate for this particular inquiry, they themselves said £900,000 a mile. They had hoped to make economies, but the cost of cooling underground is so great that the current estimate, based on the estimates of the contractors who will themselves provide and lay cable, is £1,182,000. The cost of the particular 15 miles underground with which the noble Lord is mainly concerned would he £18 million.
These are not matters that can be considered lightly. Heavy insulation of underground cables has to be provided, whereas the insulation of overhead lines is provided free by the surrounding air. If we said, as the noble Lord asked, that in future all lines going through areas of outstanding beauty must go underground, it would be tantamount to signing an open cheque, and it would be bound to have some effect on the price of electricity. More important, it would involve a considerable diversion of capital resources which we just cannot afford. Of course, that is not to say that these lines are never going to be put underground. My noble friend Lord Chorley mentioned some 3½ miles in the High Peak district, but the C.E.G.B. may be able there to take advantage of a disused railway tunnel. In the same way, in the Glaslyn area there is another 3¾ miles which is going underground to preserve a marvellous vista of Snowdon. But these circumstances are wholly exceptional.
Although the issue in each case is mainly one of cost, it is by no means the only factor. Your Lordships should not think that this is all honey, that there are only advantages in putting the cables underground. The physical operation of placing these lines underground is fraught with all kinds of difficulties, especially in cultivated areas. For example, for the equivalent of the Bolney—Lovedean line, in which the noble Lord is interested, four trenches placed at least six feet apart

563
with the necessary access road would make a corridor of land at least 42 feet in width. That would be another Roman road going right down to Cornwall, but double the width. That would involve a considerable amount of disturbance to the properties which would have to be crossed. I am talking about going underground. The trenches and the access road would involve the clearing of hedges and woodlands along the route.
While it would be possible to cultivate the land immediately over and adjacent to the cables, once they were laid, it would not be possible to erect buildings or structures of any sort along the route. There would be drums of cable weighing anything from 13 to 16 tons each which would have to be transported to the site, and joints involving excavation of large pits would be necessary every 240 yards—about every furlong: nearly eight to the mile. For cooling the cables there would have to be a heat exchanger unit, the size of a large bungalow, every two or three miles; and every seven miles or so there would be a substantial building, much bigger than a large bungalow, to house the compensation equipment for balancing the charging current of the cables. Of course, there might be difficulty in finding acceptable sites for these buildings. There would be the scar created by the placing of the cables. Also, it has been found that underground cables tend to dry up the surrounding earth, and this would be bound to have a noticeable effect on the vegetation growing above.
My Lords, with all these disadvantages how could we possibly justify the expenditure of well over £1 million on every mile for laying underground cable—22 times as much as the cost of overhead lines? These lines with which the noble Lord is particularly concerned—and rightly, of course—form part of a major transmission line across the South of England, from Dungeness, in Kent, to Exeter, and then beyond into Cornwall. This line is required to reinforce supplies to meet the increased demands for electricity from consumers in the Southern Counties, and to connect with new power sources on the coast.
Since the public inquiry, criticism of the Board's proposal has centred largely on this western section which we have been discussing, between Petworth and
564
Buriton. Of course, as I mentioned, several alternative routes were suggested. To give an indication of the extent to which this matter has been inquired into, an alternative was suggested by the Midhurst Rural District Council, which would have had the effect of taking the lines further away from Midhurst and Cowdray Park. The inspectors recommended this route, and another alternative further east, for investigation before any final decision was taken. But after consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the former Minister of Power decided to reject the inspectors' recommendation and to consent to the route proposed by the Board.
The decision letter, which is a very long letter, makes it clear that the time factor was only one of the factors involved in the decision. If the alternative routes had held out some hope of acceptance, and time had been of little account, they might have been investigated. As it was, it certainly appeared that they would be at least as hotly opposed as the Board's route, and, consequently, a further inquiry would have had to be held, so that a great deal of further delay, with all the risk to supplies which that would involve, would have been inevitable. As I said, the proposal has already been under consideration for nearly five years.
My Lords, I must make it clear that my right honourable friend the present Minister has no power at all under the Act to withdraw the consent which his predecessor granted to the Board. This consent carries with it deemed planning permission, and provides a tolerance of 200 yards on either side of the approved route. So it is a swath from Sussex to Cornwall, a quarter of a mile wide, that we are considering. But before the Board can construct the lines they must either obtain voluntary wayleaves from the owners and occupiers of land to be crossed by the line, or, failing that, obtain compulsory wayleaves from the Minister of Power.
The noble Lord, Lord Egremont, said, "If the inspector comes along, or the official comes along, asking for a way-leave, I shall kick him down the stairs." He is, of course, perfectly entitled to do that, if he likes, but I should not have thought it would strengthen his case. It might, at least to some extent,

565
damage the image which he has already created by his speech to-day. But he has every right, of course, to refuse voluntarily to grant a wayleave, in which case the matter would have to go before the Minister to decide whether to grant the Board a compulsory wayleave in any particular case. And before that was done the owner or occupier concerned would be given an opportunity of being heard. This would normally be done by appointing one of the Minister's inspectors to hold a hearing at which the cases of the Board and the owner-occupier could be heard, and the Minister would reach a decision in the light of the inspector's report.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? He tells us of the difference in price between overhead cables and underground cables, and says that the cost of the latter is twenty-two times higher. Does that apply only to the larger type which the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, mentioned—that is, 400 KV power lines—or does it apply to all power lines? I have been in very close touch with the Central Electricity Board about my land, and they have told me that it is only eight times.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad the noble Earl has asked that question. This price of £1,182,000 applies only to the 400 KV lines. There are, of course, pylons carrying lines with 275,000 volts which are only 136 feet high, compared with the 165 feet high pylons of which we are now speaking.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: But they are just as ugly.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, but these are not all that much more ugly. One would have imagined this was something terrifically new. But the important thing for the noble Earl to bear in mind is that these 400 KV lines will carry three times as much current as the 275 KV lines. Therefore, there are far fewer of them, and far fewer pylons; and that is why, perhaps not in the area affected but certainly in the aggregate, and nationally, they produce less scars.
I was dealing will the point about wayleaves. If an owner objects, there can be a hearing and the Minister has to decide. If the Minister decides not to grant a compulsory wayleave, then the
566
Board has to find a way round; and if the Board does apply for a compulsory wayleave over the noble Earl's land, then that is the procedure that would have to be followed—although, of course, I cannot anticipate, assuming that the noble Lord did refuse to grant a wayleave, what my right honourable friend's decision might be in that case.
My Lords, I have tried to answer the questions that have been asked. I did not, when I started, imagine that I was going to satisfy everybody, but I have given, I think, facts which must be considered and which are basic to this problem; and I hope that that at least will be of use to the noble Lord in further considering this matter. But I want to say this, on the general question: we have to face the fact that this country has an urgent and increasing demand for electricity which has to he met; that demand is doubling itself every nine years, according to the latest count, and the interests of the country require that the necessary plant and equipment for meeting this demand should be provided, not only efficiently and quickly, but also with due regard to securing a proper balance between the claims of amenity and the claims of economy.
I am seeing my right honourable friend on (I think it is) Thursday, and I wilt most certainly see that these points are very thoroughly brought to his notice, although I am quite sure that he will have read this debate even before then. But I say to your Lordships that after prolonged and searching inquiry it has been decided that these to some extent conflicting claims of amenity and economy have been best reconciled in the scheme which was approved by the former Minister of Power, and that my right honourable friend has agreed that in the national interest it must now go forward.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I know that nobody has any power, on an Unstarred Question, to say anything further, and all I want to do is to ask the noble Lord a question, though I must say that I was a little surprised by his very definite statement that it is impossible for the Minister to undo any decision made by a former Minister. That certainly does not seem to have been the attitude of the Government in certain

567
other spheres, as we heard only this afternoon.
The question I want to ask is this. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the plans of the Electricity Generating Board are pretty well completed up to 1970, anyhow, and that they have consulted the National Parks Commission and the county councils on these plans. The only people who have not heard about these plans are the general public. If they are so widely known as this, would it be possible for the noble Lord to suggest to his right honourable friend that some type of map could be drawn up which would show what plans have been approved up to 1970? Because, even if there is nothing to be done about these plans—and I would agree with the noble Lord that he made a very powerful case—I think we ought to know what we are up against; and I would be very grateful if he would ask just that question of the Minister.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on the question of my right honourable friend's powers in this matter, I would repeat that under the Act as it stands he has no power to vary a previous decision. The noble Marquess will be aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, greatly to my regret, has not the power to vary certain decisions made by his predecessor under the 1962 Transport Act—which decisions, in my view, will devastate the countryside. But, unfortunately, without further legislation nothing can be done. On the noble Marquess's question, however, I should like to make it clear—and I am sure he will accept this—that before the C.E.G.B. can publish tentative plans they must consult with major authorities in order to secure some measure of agreement. But, apart from that reservation, I think he is certainly on a very good point, and I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down perhaps he will give me the chance (I know that he has been asked many questions to-night) of asking just one further question. In view of the fact that the demand for electricity will go on increas-
568
ing in the years to come, there will obviously be, on this basis, need for bigger and bigger pylons. There has been some talk in the past about a superconductor system using liquid nitrogen to cool the line. I was wondering whether the noble Lord could give us some assurance that the C.E.G.B. will be given a very substantial grant at this stage to enable research to be carried out now on new methods of conducting electricity, so that in the future, before they have to build something twice the height of Nelson's Column to carry it, we may have a different system, a system which one would hope would be more economical, would save charges all round and would be able to carry the electricity demands made upon it in the years to come.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, of course I cannot commit the C.E.G.B. to grants for research, but they are already spending millions of pounds on research.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: And on super-conductivity.
LORD STONHAM: I was coming to that. They are spending £11½ million on underground cable, mainly in urban areas, every year. It is in their interest to get these costs down. But, on the point which has just been raised by the noble Lord, where a good deal of money has already been spent on research, it was thought until recently that it might be decades before that system would produce results, but only last week Dr. Kurti, of the Clarendon Laboratory, said it would be feasible in five years or so—that is an opinion, and it is the most recent opinion we have had—but we do not know at what cost. Obviously, all these matters are being very carefully considered. There will be even more intensive consideration in the hope that we can get a breakthrough: and if we get a breakthrough, then it will be much easier to take down pylons than to tear down power-houses.
LORD REDESDALE: But not, my Lords, to grow the trees they have to cut down underneath.
House adjourned at one minute past six o'clock.