Lords Sitting of 26 November 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester
The Lord Glentoran—Took the Oath.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT TO HAYLING ISLAND
3.6 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will insist on a brief technical feasibility study being made to compare the economics of running a bus-type rail service and a road bus service between the terminals of Havant and Hayling Island before a decision is reached on an application by the Havant Urban District Council for planning permission to construct a road on the site of the existing railway line; and if not, to ask how Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with the public transport needs of the resident population of Hayling Island and immediate vicinity and with the increasing road congestion in that area caused by increasing numbers of seasonal holidaymakers.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, the authority responsible for considering such a planning application is the Hampshire County Council. Whether or not they would consider an economic comparison of the kind the noble Lord suggests is a matter in the first place for them. The Havant By-pass, when completed, should do much to reduce congestion at holiday times. Further provision for local traffic and transport needs is the responsibility of the highway authorities and transport operators concerned.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer—which I must confess is not entirely satisfactory, and I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was not there beside him—may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider bringing to the attention of the Hampshire County Council the fact that, as has been mentioned by the Area Manager of the Southdown Motor Service, at certain times it takes a bus one and three-quarter hours to go from Havant to Hayling Island, while the operating company who propose to operate a light railway service between these two points could cover the distance in thirteen minutes? Do not Her Majesty's Government think that that is a point worth considering, in view of the large congestion at certain periods of the year between Hayling Island and Havant? May I also draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the railway track is in perfect condition and that it would be a great shame to pull it up?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, to take the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary first, the Statement of my right honourable friend made on November 4 stands. The track will remain unless the railway authorities apply to him for permission to take it up, and then he would consider any application on its merits. So far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, that is a matter in the first instance for the Hampshire County Council together with the local urban district council, but if any representations are made to my right honourable friend or to the Ministry's Divisional Road Engineer we shall be only too pleased to co-operate.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am most grateful for the latter part of the answer regarding co-operation on the part of Her Majesty's Government. But as the noble Lord's right honourable friend is aware, I believe, of the fact that out of a total residential population of 9,000 there have already been received 5,000 signatures of persons who are keen that a light railway service should operate, will he also bear that in mind? Will he also bear in mind, and express to the Hampshire County Council, that the Havant and Emsworth District Chambers of Trade, the Havant and Bedhampton Electors' and Ratepayers'

929
Association and the Havant and District Railway Retirement Association are all against the closing down of the normal line?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, as I said in my Statement, following my right honourable friend's Statement in another place on November 4, my right honourable friend has no power under the 1962 Transport Act to interfere with any decision made by the previous Minister. So far as the latter part of the question is concerned there has been no formal application to my right honourable friend in regard to the possible operation of a light railway. If one were made, then my right honourable friend would have to consider the financial stability of the organisation applying and its technical ability to carry out the job, because he would be responsible under a Light Railway Order for the safety of such a railway.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am most grateful.

WHITE LINES ON THREE-LANE ROADS
3.9 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 whether they are now in a position to make a statement von the trials carried out of alternately offset double or single white line; on a straight road of three lanes.]
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the trials with alternate offset double white lines on straight lengths of three-lane roads were started in June on 4½ miles of the A.1 and are being extended to four other stretches of road, giving a total of some 24 miles. But these trials have not been in progress long enough for firm conclusions to be drawn. The indications so far are that there has been an encouraging reduction in the number of accidents but that congestion during busy periods has increased.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, I would ask whether, in
930
view of the encouraging reduction in accidents, the Government would consider having a much wider trial on other roads, in other parts of the country, in order to obtain more information and more experience more quickly. Does not the Minister think that any action of this nature which will in any way reduce road accidents is very worthwhile? Does he not also think that, even if perhaps there might be some extra congestion, that would not matter if the situation in which injury or death result could in some way be ameliorated?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question, may I point out to him, as he has told the House that the evidence for this rather small experiment is not conclusive, that the practical experience over ten to fifteen years of all practical road users is that three-lane traffic roads are a death-trap? Why does he keep on delaying by having more experiments which are not necessary? What we want, my Lords—and I would say this to the Minister—is not more experiments but more action. The noble Lord who asked this Question is right: there is only one way to get over congestion, and that is not to have three traffic lanes but four traffic lanes. But so long as three-lane roads continue, the suggestion in this Question is the only practical solution.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with the greatest respect, we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, a statement of opinion rather than a question. But in reply to the noble Lord who put the original Question, I would say that we are, in fact, considering a much wider series of experiments in different parts of the country and in totally different traffic conditions; in the tidal flow of traffic and on roads which have peculiar peaks of holiday traffic and the rest. The experiment could be extended.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, in order to overcome the difficulty experienced by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may I ask the Minister whether he does not consider that the three-lane system of traffic on certain roads is by far and away the most dangerous method of conducting traffic ever conceived by the wit of man in this world? Secondly, may I ask the noble

931
Lord when he expects that the conclusion of this experimentation will take place, in order that we may see some action taken by the Government in order to eliminate three-lane traffic?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, taking the first part of the question, may I say that I made a statement myself in the House in reply to an interjection by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, during the transport debate. It was entirely my own opinion from my experience as a motorist. I understand, however, from the brief provided by the Ministry that the three-lane road does not have a greater frequency of accidents; but what is most worrying is that the severity of accidents there is much greater. In so far as the period of the experiment is concerned, I would say that at the moment the Ministry think it will take about eighteen months' experience of the various types of traffic build-up on these roads before they can make a firm decision.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, could the noble Lord say why he thinks that further experiments are necessary, when this system has been in use on the roads in France and other Continental countries and America for years? I cannot see why further experiments are needed when the Ministry can get all the information from overseas Ministries of Transport.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, perhaps the most extensive experiments have been in Italy, and those results are being taken into account. But traffic conditions in this country are a little different from those operating on the roads in Italy.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord really mean that for eighteen months during the period of further experimentation this danger of the three-lane ways on roads is to continue, and that we shall then, presumably, have to look forward to at least another year while the Ministry are considering what shall be done about it?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is not only a question of danger on three-lane roads. That is admitted. But the experiment, even so far, shows that there are disadvantages, in so far as offset
932
double white lines are concerned, where double white lines converge to single, and there are opportunities for accidents, particularly on straight roads where speed is involved. It is the factor of speed when moving from two-lane into single-lane that the Ministry are considering.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that where the road is not wide enough to enable it to be transformed from a three-lane to a four-lane road it would be better to transform it into a two-lane road, with an alternate offset single or double white line?
LORD LINDGREN: Part of the problem is that the standard width of a three-lane road is 33 feet. Many of the older ones are only 30 feet wide. This can create problems, particularly when a motorist or a lorry is pulling out to pass a cyclist.

CO-ORDINATION OF UNDERWATER RESEARCH
3.15 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 has been made in the co-ordination and development of research work in connection with underwater activities.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if the noble Lord has particularly in mind those fields of underwater research where diving can be used, a number of Government Departments and agencies are maintaining an active interest in underwater research by this means. These include particularly the Ministry of Defence, the Government Fisheries Departments and other agencies and Government-supported bodies concerned with research in the underwater environment. There is already very close co-operation between all of those bodies participating in this field of research.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that a year or two ago a Committee was set up to see what could be

933
done to co-ordinate and extend all the various activities now engaged in underwater research? is he not aware that there are many of these activities—medical, commercial and in other directions as well—and that, whereas at one time this country led the world in some of these activities, it row appears that this country is falling behind? Can he give some assurance that this matter will be treated with urgency and that there will be a proper co-ordinating body set up to make quite certain that this country does not fall further behind other countries in this particular sphere of activity where once we had the lead?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am aware of all the facts in the first part of the noble Lord's statement and have been personally interested and concerned in some of them, but I doubt whether all his noble friends would agree that the Government must co-ordinate everything. I imagine he is referring particularly to diving techniques. This is a technique which can be used in many fields. It can be used commercially; it can be used particularly for research purposes. A good deal of work in this respect is going on, and we are closely in touch with that going on in other countries. But I am doubtful whether thin is rightly a field in which the Government should co-ordinate everything. In other forms of exploration you use, for instance, sledges and dog teams, but the Government do not attempt to co-ordinate research into dog teams. I think there is a limit to this. As to the Government's interest, I can assure the noble Lord there is no doubt about that, and we shall, of course, continue to be interested to hear any representations which he or the British Sub-Aqua Club may wish to make. There have been these meetings and I hope that useful cooperation will continue. Perhaps I might also mention that there is a direct Government subvention to the tune of £1,500 to the British Sub-Aqua Club from the Department of Education and Science.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that further reply. I was not suggesting that there should be direct co-ordination by the Government in this matter. I was, however, suggesting that it is surely up to the Government to create conditions which would ensure that there was a far
934
better co-ordination than now appears to exist. It is the creating of conditions which I am suggesting is of such importance, in view of the many organisations with such a variety of interests in this underwater activity and exploration. Is the noble Lord not aware that two-thirds of the earth's surface is covered with water, and that there is here a great field where activity can be developed, in fact with much more immediate and likely results than in exploration in space?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is moving into very deep water indeed. In particular forms of research there is such coordination. Only recently a committee over which I presided, the Expeditions Committee of the Royal Geographical Society, provided official support for an underwater research of this kind. We are well aware that two-thirds of the earth's surface still needs investigating, but of course diving techniques are not the only way of doing so. While I am sure your Lordships will admire the enthusiasm of the noble Lord in this matter—and certainly we would wish to encourage that—I think there are limits to the part that the Government can play.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether this matter will come under the new Ministry of Technology?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it depends on what particular use this technique is going to be put to. In so far as it is research, I should have thought it would come under the new Natural Environment Research Council. But, of course, so far as commercial and industrial applications are concerned the Ministry of Technology will have an interest, will watch, and will co-operate with anybody else in this field.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, does the noble Lord take great pride in the fact that H.M.S. "Reclaim" holds the world's deep-diving record at the present moment?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I entirely endorse what the noble Viscount has said. There have been other deep-diving records, including one held a few years ago by the Royal Navy. And there is, of course, close co-operation between

935
H.M.S. "Vernon" and the British Sub-Aqua Club. I think the noble Lord need not worry too much.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on international loans at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

LEGAL AID (GENERAL) (AMEND- MENT) REGULATIONS, 1964
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on the 4th November, be approved. As your Lordships are aware, legal aid is now available for nearly all kinds of civil proceedings in the ordinary courts, including domestic proceedings in the magistrates' courts, for which it became available in May, 1961. It is not, however, yet available for one most important category of case in those courts: I refer to cases concerning the care and protection of children and young persons.
The extension of the legal aid scheme for these cases was strongly advocated by the Committee on Children and Young Persons, which, under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, reported in 1960. It was also strongly recommended by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is Chairman. As that Committee said in its Report for 1962–63, the lack of legal aid is apt to place both children and their parents at a grave disadvantage in some cases in the juvenile courts. The cases are of great importance, since the court's decision may result in families being permanently or temporarily broken up, a circumstance which may have grave consequences to the family and where, it may be added, a basic civil liberty is concerned. The Committee observed further that the children and their parents are often, owing to their poor education and agitated state of mind, quite unable to put their cases properly, so that an important point may be missed by the court for lack of knowledge.
936
My Lords, I cannot think of any kind of civil case which has to be heard in our courts for which there may be a greater need for the proper representation of the parties. The cost of this extension was estimated by the Advisory Committee at £34,000 a year. I think that that was, if anything, perhaps a cautious estimate, because the evidence before the Committee was to the effect that there are rather fewer than 9,000 of these cases a year and that legal aid would probably be granted in about 500 of them. The estimate of £34,000 is based on an estimate of there being legal aid in 2,000 of such cases; so I think, as I say, that the figure given is rather on the cautious side. But I adopt the estimate, and I suggest that a sum of that order would be a small price to pay when one considers the great importance of ensuring the welfare of children in these sad cases.
The Draft Regulations do two things. Regulation 2 makes legal aid available for care and protection cases. Regulation 3 is concerned with procedure. There is a specially expeditious proceeding for dealing with applications to the Law Society's committees for legal aid for domestic proceedings. This Regulation has the effect of making use of this same procedure for "care and protection" cases. As they are quite often urgent, expeditious procedure is clearly advisable.
My Lords, this can hardly be described as law reform, but I ought to say that as I understand it, if the previous Administration had still been in power they would have laid regulations in the same form. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations, 1964, laid before the House on November 4, 1964, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to say a word about these Regulations. I am glad that they have been introduced, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for his clear exposition of their effect. I think this is a desirable change in the law—a desirable extension of the legal aid system. I will not use the term "law reform". I do not want to excite the noble and learned Lord more than is necessary on this change, which would in fact have been made

937
some time ago; but, of course, other changes were made under the last Administration, and one has to be sure that the administrative machine is able to cope with this change. At the time some delay occurred because other changes were being implemented. There was a second reason for the delay—namely, that these Regulations require an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses—so it has fallen to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to move approval of the Regulations, and indeed to lay them. I am glad that he has done so, and I am very glad indeed that when he came to look in the Lord Chancellor's cupboard he found these Regulations ready for introduction.
3.29 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should not have intervened but for the last remark of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne. We all accept that these Regulations are a good thing. I do not think I need say more on the merits. But I should like to say a word about this "cupboard". Perhaps at some time the noble and learned Lord could tell us what is left in this cupboard which is constantly referred to. This is a scrap. It is a little stale now; it has been in the cupboard for four years. It was kept there, we are told, because of the difficulty of getting an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. The noble and learned Lord opposite knows perfectly well that this would have been a mere formality.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, I would say to him that I gave that as one reason. But I am not saying that that reason was in existence for four years—obviously it was not. It was the other reason which caused some delay. Then, when the Regulations were ready, there came the question of getting Parliamentary approval.
LORD SILKIN: I was coming on to the first of the reasons the noble and learned Lord gave, which is the easy one. That cannot really be put forward as a reason, when it would have gone through as a matter of form a: any time in the last four years. But on the other one, I would ask: is this a matter which requires such elaborate preparation? This change was based on a Report
938
made in 1960, and here we have the result of the Report—a very simple amendment of the Legal Aid Regulations. That could have been done any time, and I can only think that it was overlooked and was not regarded as particularly important. However, I am glad that we all accept it to-day. One day perhaps the noble and learned Lord could tell us if there is anything left in this cupboard of his.
LORD DILHORNE: My Lords, perhaps I might answer that point now; with the leave of the House. I did not introduce the word "cupboard": it was a word used by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I could have used some other descriptions. I do not quite know the particular cupboard to which the noble and learned Lord was referring. With regard to the earlier part of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was saying, if he will make inquiries he will find that the Law Society were busily engaged in implementing other changes, and that that was the reason why they felt they could not take on board this change at that same time.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, I am the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Legal Aid. And, since I am in my place I would say how glad I am, as Chairman of that Committee—and I know that all the members will feel the same way—that it has been possible to bring the Regulations before the House to-day. We certainly hope that they will be approved.
The work of the Legal Aid Committee consists not only in looking at the work of the Law Society and in seeing how they are carrying on their duties, but also in seeing how far it is possible for them to undertake more duties than they are at the moment undertaking; and, further, to see how the original intentions contained in the Rushcliffe Report are being implemented. Other suggestions are put up from time to time as to matters which could be legally aided, but I think the test very often is how far those new suggestions follow the line of the original recommendations of the Rushcliffe Report and how far they are, so to speak, afterthoughts. Certainly I myself felt that this extension to "care and protection" proceedings was very

939
much in line with the intentions of the Rushcliffe Report and, therefore, was something that should be done as early as possible. How early it should be done depended on practical considerations. We felt, when we made this Report, that the time had come when these recommendations should be made, and we are very glad that this view was taken in higher quarters.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I, as another representative of the solicitors' branch of the profession, say how grateful we are to the noble and learned Lords concerned that we did not have the burden of implementing these further Regulations laid upon us at any earlier date; because we have been rather heavily embroiled in administering other Regulations which have been laid before Parliament and passed in recent years. I would, however, assure the House that, if it is the intention of Parliament to pass these Regulations, we shall, I am sure, on both sides of the House, do our utmost to implement them to the best of our ability.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say how much I agree with everything which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman? I am sure that the whole House will agree with me in saying how grateful we are for the work done by the noble Viscount's Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CUTLERY AND STAINLESS STEEL FLATWARE INDUSTRY (SCIEN- TIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1964
3.55 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on November 10, be approved. Perhaps a brief explanation would be acceptable to the House This Order, if it is approved by Parliament, will be made by the Board of Trade under the authority of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act,
940
1947. It seeks to increase the rate of levy laid down by the Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1962, which came into operation on January 1, 1963, and superseded an earlier Order operative on January 1, 1961. These Orders imposed a levy upon the cutlery and stainless steel flatware industry to finance scientific research in the industry. This research is carried on by the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association and is financed partly by levy contributions from the industry and partly by a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
In each of the years 1963 and 1964 the grant from D.S.I.R. has been £9,000, and levy collections have yielded approximately the £14,000 necessary to attract the grant. In 1965 the grant will be £11,000 on condition that the industrial income raised by means of the levy reaches £18,000. There is no possibility of the levy collections reaching £18,000 next year without an increase in the levy rate. Increased competition at home and abroad makes it essential that the industry should be up to date and have adequate research facilities available to it. The additional resources resulting from the increased levy and the increased D.S.I.R. grant will be used mainly on research and development projects. Because labour costs account for a large proportion of the cost of manufacture of cutlery and flatware, the bulk of the increased research effort will be devoted to increasing the degree of mechanisation and to reducing the number of manufacturing operations.
The amending Order does not alter the basis on which the levy has been imposed, but increases the rate by one-third to provide the additional yield which is required. The 1962 Cutlery Order exempted from levy liability the first £3,000 of annual turnover, and the present Order does not affect that exemption. The Order has been drafted in full accord with the wishes of the trade organisation representative of manufacturers, the United Kingdom Cutlery and Silverware Manufacturers' Association, and with the support of the trade union to which persons employed in the industry belong, the Cutlery Section of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. The industry has a very good export record. With the

941
increased level of scientific research that will be made possible by this increase in levy, it is hoped that the industry will be assisted in its efforts to meet increased competition at home and also maintain and expand the substantial level of exports it has achieved hitherto.
Moved, That the Draft Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1964 laid before the House on 10th November 1964, be approved.—(Lord Rhodes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
3.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, although I like an audience, I do not like a captive one. It appears that this will be very largely a captive audience awaiting a Statement which is to come. The timing is unfortunate—I have had nothing to do with this—but I must now proceed to move the Second Reading of this rather interesting, though small, Bill.
The Economist, just over a week ago, said that
"for the immediate future the legislative machine is being fed with pretty soft pap."
I would certainly say that the Economist is right so far as this Bill is concerned. Certainly the Bill is a non-controversial one and will, I hope and expect, be acceptable to both Houses of Parliament. When this Bill was thrust into my hands and somebody said, "Will you look after this?", I read the Long Title and realised that up to the point of reading it, I just did not know that the Landon and Guild-hall Museums even existed. Such ignorance is inexcusable, but my mortification at finding myself so lacking was considerably lessened when, after I had asked a few Londoners what they knew about museums devoted to London's history, I found that they knew nothing either. Just in case some of your Lordships happen to share my ignorance, I propose to devote the major part of my speech to the background to this Bill.
The purpose of this Bill is to create a new Museum of London by amalgamat-
942
ing two existing institutions, the London Museum, which is Exchequer financed, and the Guildhall Museum, which is administered by the City of London. The London Museum owes its origin to the vision and initiative of the first Lord Harcourt, whose son is the present chairman of the Trustees, and the second Lord Esher, whose grandson is also a Trustee. Their idea was to found a museum which would be for London what the Carnavalet Museum had long been for Paris; that is, a museum illustrating life in the capital through the ages and acting thereby, also, as a mirror of life in England from century to century. They started in 1911 with some private funds which had been placed at their disposal for the purpose of forming a collection of suitable objects, and they soon succeeded in creating interest in the project and in attracting gifts and loans from other people, including King George V and Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, the London County Council and numerous individual collectors. King George V gave permission for the new Museum to be housed in the State Apartments and other parts of Kensington Palace, where the Museum was opened to the public in 1912.
Kensington Palace was never intended to be more than a temporary home for the Museum, and in 1913 Sir William Lever (afterwards Viscount Leverhulme) bought the lease of Stafford House and gave it to the nation for the joint purposes of housing the London Museum and providing a setting for Government hospitality. The Trustees of the London Museum then placed their collections at the disposal of the Government for the term of the lease of Stafford House, and so long afterwards as the collections should continue to be exhibited there, or in some other equally suitable building maintained by the Government. If these conditions failed to be implemented the original collections were to revert to Lord Harcourt or his heirs. The Government accepted these offers and undertook financial responsibility for the maintenance of the London Museum. From that time onwards the Trustees, apart from some ex officio ones, were appointed by the Prime Minister.
The Museum was happy—a nice word that—in Lancaster House, as Stafford

943
House was subsequently renamed, from 1913 until the Second World War, when most of the collections had to be put away into safe storage and Lancaster House began to be used for international conferences. In 1940 the original lease of the building expired and a new 42-year lease was taken by the Ministry of Works from the Crown Estate. After the war the Government decided that the building would continue to be required for conferences and official hospitality, and that another home would have to be found for the Museum. At that time another suitable building was extremely hard to find, but in 1949 King George VI gave consent for part of Kensington Palace again to be used by the Museum for a term of fifteen years from December, 1950; and this term has been extended by the Present Queen for a further five years, to 1970. Again, however, this could never have been more than a temporary arrangement, and Kensington Palace is for a number of reasons not an ideal setting for the Museum, however well some of its possessions fit in there. It was not long, therefore, before the Trustees were making strong representations to the Government to provide them with a suitable permanent home.
To turn now to the Guildhall Museum, this was founded by order of the Court of Common Council in 1826. The first contribution to the collections consisted of Roman and other antiquities found during the excavations of the foundations of the new post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand. The original concept of the Museum was simply that of an adjunct to the library where could be seen objects to illustrate books on the Library's shelves, but it soon became clear that the Museum must be much more than this. To begin with it occupied one single room in the library. In 1872, when the new library wing was opened, the Museum was housed in the basement beneath it and was opened to the public. The Museum has continued to be closely integrated with the library, and the library committee of the Common Council is directly responsible for its administration. Like the library and the art gallery, it was originally financed from the Corporation's private nurse, City's cash, but since 1921 has been supported financially from rates funds.
944
All the objects in the Guildhall Museum are connected with the City. A large number of them consist of archædogical material, including a great deal which has been unearthed in the course of excavations connected with the rebuilding of the City since 1946. The Guildhall Museum has always been closely associated with the scientific examination of sites cleared for rebuilding, and it has been generally agreed that all objects found during excavations should be given to the Museum. The result has been that in the last eighteen years there has been an increase of more than 50 per cent. over the total number of specimens in the Museum collected during the previous 120 years. Of the more recent acquisitions perhaps the most spectacular were those from the Temple of Mithras found on the site of Bucklers-bury House in 1955. Quite apart from objects dug out of the ground, there are many important and beautiful things which have never disappeared from view, including a most important collection of ecclesiastical plate belonging to City Churches. In addition, several collections belonging to the livery companies have been deposited with the Museum, including the world famous collection of the Clockmakers' and Glovers' Companies.
As a result of war and war damage, the Guildhall collection moved about and eventually, in 1955, the exhibition, comprising about 10 per cent. of the collection, came to rest in the Royal Exchange, but the greater part of the collection had to be left in store at the Guildhall. So the Guildhall Museum, like the London Museum, is still waiting for adequate accommodation in a permanent home.
Both the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum are essentially local museums, though the history of London obviously has a far more than local interest. It is a generally accepted principle in this country that local museums should be primarily a local responsibility. The Guildhall Museum is, of course, entirely a local responsibility, since it is administered and wholly financed by the City of London. The London Museum is entirely an Exchequer responsibility, except to the extent that the London County Council and a number of other local education authorities make a contribution towards the cost of the services rendered by the Museum to visiting schools. The L.C.C. have, how-

945
ever, always taker a great interest in the London Museum, particularly on the educational side, and the Chairman of the L.C.C. Education Committee is ex officio one of the Trustees.
This was the situation from which there developed the idea that the solution to the accommodation problems of the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum might be found in bringing the two together under one roof, with the costs shared between the Treasury and the two great London authorities. So tentative approaches were made, meetings were held, and by 1962 the way was clear for an announcement that the three authorities and the Trustees of the London Museum had agreed in principle on a scheme for a combined museum.
The essence or the scheme is that the two museums will be amalgamated to form a new Museum of London, which will be housed in a new building to be erected for the purpose on a site in the City of London. The capital and running costs will be borne jointly, and in equal shares, by the Exchequer, the City Corporation and the Greater London Council, which has agreed to accept the obligations entered into by the London County Council in respect of the project. The Museum will be managed by a Board of eighteen Governors, consisting of nominees in equal numbers of the three contributing authorities.
In order that preparatory work for the new Museum might be put in hand as soon as possible, an interim Board of Governors, constituted on the lines just mentioned, was set up in May, 1962. By agreement between the three authorities, Lord Harcourt, the Chairman of the Trustees of the London Museum, was appointed Chairman of the Interim Board. The first act of the Board was to appoint as Director and Deputy Director designate of the Museum of London the present Director of the London Museum and the Keeper of the Guildhall Museum respectively. They then, with the approval of the three authorities, invited a firm of architects to prepare a preliminary scheme and estimates for the Museum building on a site which is on the edge of the Barbican area, at the junction of Aldersgate and London Wall and, very appropriately, close to the remains of the Cripplegate portion
946
of the Roman and Mediaeval City Wall. The architects produced their preliminary scheme a few months ago. It was fully acceptable to the interim Board of Governors, and is now in the process of obtaining the blessing of the three contributing authorities.
So far as the blessing of the Government is concerned, there has to be one proviso. The architects' scheme provides for the Museum building to be on six floors arranged around a garden court, with its East side forming the base for a 200-feet high office tower block which would be leased separately by the City Corporation, and which, incidentally, would be so arranged that some 19,000 square feet of square could be made available for expansion of the Museum at a future date. The Government's approval of the scheme has, of course, to be subject to the decisions which will have to be taken in due course about office building development in this area of the City.
Quite apart from this factor, it would necessarily take some time for the final plans to be completed and for the building to get off the ground. The earliest date at which a start could be made would be some three years hence, which might enable the Museum to be opened in, say, the spring of 1970. Meanwhile, however, there is a great deal of preparatory work to be done in integrating the two collections and in planning their display in the new building. It will certainly be desirable for the amalgamation of the two institutions and their staff to take place well before the new building is ready. The Bill therefore provides for this to be done, and for the collections of the London and Guildhall Museums to be vested in the Board of Governors of the Museum of London on a date to be agreed between the Treasury, the City Corporation and the Greater London Council.
My Lords, we shall have an opportunity at a later stage to discuss the contents of the Bill in detail, so to-day I do not propose to take the House through the sixteen clauses of this simple Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION: I thank noble Lords very much for those cheers: they help a lot. So to-day, as I say, I do not propose to take the House

947
through the sixteen clauses of this Bill. Nevertheless, I think that perhaps I ought to mention Clause 12, which makes provision for a payment by the Treasury of a sum not exceeding £150,000 in respect of furniture and equipment. This sum will be over and above the one-third of the capital cost, which, as I have previously said, will be borne by the Exchequer.
Before sitting down, I must also say a word about the position of the staff. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the salaries of the staff of the Museum of London to be determined by the Corporation, after consultation with the Treasury and the Greater London Council, and for their terms and conditions of employment to be such as the Corporation may direct. Clause 9 provides for them to be brought within the Corporation's superannuation scheme. These provisions will no doubt have the effect that the pay and other terms and conditions of service of the staff will he on the lines of those applicable in local government employment, which seems entirely reasonable for a museum situated in the City of London and financed as to two-thirds out of City and Greater London rates.
Those of the staff of the Guildhall Museum who transfer to the Museum of London are therefore unlikely to find very much difference in their terms and conditions of service. For staff transferring from the London Museum, where Civil Service terms and conditions apply, the difference may be somewhat greater, and it is possible that there may be some feeling of apprehension on that score. I hope that what I am going to say may allay any such feeling. First, the day to be appointed for the amalgamation of the two museums will not be determined without ample notice being given. It is intended that this should take place sooner, rather than later, in the period of several years which must elapse before the new building is ready for occupation. But nobody need have any fear that the moment the Bill becomes law the appointed day will be fixed and the amalgamation will take place in a few days or weeks. That is certainly not the intention.
Secondly, nobody will be compelled to transfer to the Museum of London. If there are people in the London Museum
948
who do not want to transfer, every effort will be made to find them employment in one of the other national museums. If that should prove impossible, they would be entitled to compensation for abolition of office in accordance with the agreed rules. Thirdly, it will be the intention of the three authorities, and undoubtedly of the Board of Governors also, that the rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment of staff transferred to the new Museum will be such as, taken together, compare fairly with those which they now enjoy in the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum. Fourthly, there will be consultation with the staff on all matters affecting their transfer.
My Lords, I invite the House to welcome a measure designed to give Parliamentary sanction for a constructive and imaginative project. London has two fine museums whose separate development is hampered by their accommodation difficulties. The Bill will clear the way for their transformation into a single yet finer Museum, covering the history and archæology of the whole of the London area and of the people who have lived in it through the ages. The Bill will also break new ground in that it provides for a unique and, we all feel sure, a most fruitful partnership between the central Government and the two London authorities in an enterprise which is of interest and value to the taxpayer generally and, more especially, to the ratepayers of London. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Champion.)
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we warmly welcome this Bill and I have nothing to add to the very full statement which has been made. The agreement on which the Bill is based between the Treasury and the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum was made three years ago in 1961, oddly enough on the same week in which bank rate was last raised to 7 per cent. That did not prevent the agreement's being made, and I do not see why the 7 per cent. bank rate should prevent the Bill from being given a Second Reading now. One of the governors who took a great part in making that agreement was the late Lord Esher, whose views on these matters

949
were greatly appreciated by the House. The only other point I wanted to put was that your Lordships will undoubtedly remember that the Robbins Committee recommended that the administration of the arts should be removed from the Treasury. This was objected to by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, Chairman of the Arts Council, largely on the grounds that the Treasury knows nothing about art and is therefore less likely to interfere with good management. I think this Bill is an example in favour of that, in keeping them under the control of the Treasury. I hope your Lordships will approve of it.

INTERNATIONAL CREDITS FOR DEFENCE OF STERLING
4.3 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made in another place. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to use the word; of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are as follows:
"The House will recall that in my statement on Monday, I said that the Bank of England were in close touch with other Central Banks with the object of maintaining co-operation. Yesterday evening the Bank announced the result of these endeavours.
"Three billion dollars (£1,070 million) have been placed at their disposal by eleven Central Banks to defend sterling. This massive support, the promptness of which we appreciate, demonstrates the vital importance of the strength of sterling not only to ourselves but to the monetary and trading systems of the world. These credits are separate from the assistance already received which will be repaid from the drawing of one billion dollars (£357 million) which we intend to make next week from the International Monetary Fund.
"This concerted action of the monetary authorities of the Western world will demonstrate to those who have been influenced by rumours about the future of sterling that their fears are groundless.
950
"A stable currency is the product of a strong economy. The value of these credits is that they give time to press forward with the Government's longer-terms plans to strengthen the economy.
"The Government intend that we should be seen to be paying our way overseas as well as at home. Firstly, therefore, priority is being given to increasing our exports through measures that are being urgently worked out as well as those already announced. Secondly, a strict review is taking place of the whole range of Government expenditure including overseas defence commitments in order to secure a reduction in the burden on our balance of payments. Thirdly, we intend that resources of skilled manpower and of capacity should be released in order to put them behind the export effort.
"The Government are confident that these measures, together with others already announced and begun, will enable us to pay our way.
"The new credits announced yesterday are a measure of the confidence which has been shown in Britain and in our ability to achieve our objective."
I hope that the House will feel that I was right to make this Statement here, even though it is entirely of a financial character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may well be giving carefully considered replies to supplementary questions elsewhere; but I hope the House will not wish me to to try to compete with him in this House this afternoon.
A NOBLE LORD: Why not?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I do not think this is the right occasion to discuss the background of the Statement, which we shall, no doubt, have an opportunity to do in the near future. Nor do I wish to cross-examine the Government now about their long-term plans for strengthening the economy which are referred to in this Statement; I do not think that would be useful in this House at this moment. But there is one point on which I should like a little more enlightenment. When the Statement says:
"… we intend that resources of skilled manpower and of capacity should be released in order to put them behind the export effort".
what exactly does that mean? Released by whom and in what way? Does it

951
imply that direction of labour is being contemplated? If not, what on earth does it mean?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I say that we on these Benches also welcome the Statement? I think, from the Liberal Party point of view, it puts us in some little embarrassment, because we wish this Government well and want to see it have a fair run. It seems to me that the unfortunate Chancellor of the Exchequer is being overtaken by events as he speaks. It is not very convincing to say that those who have had fears about the future of sterling are now convinced that their fears are groundless. This afternoon I do not think they are. But this is not a point to pursue. I must just say to Her Majesty's Government that we hope that things will go better for them, but, so far as we are concerned, we do not think that this Statement is a complete assurance, that they have gone better at present.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I am glad that he hopes that things will go better. I should have thought that this was encouraging news, in view of the difficulties that have arisen, and I should therefore think that in that sense things had gone well in the last 24 hours. But there is a long haul in front of all of us. We must agree about that. It is not a question of saying we are out of the wood. But I hope that the noble Lord, on reflection, will feel that what we have announced is a case of "so far so good."
In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I feel he has raised very wide questions as to how resources should be released for export. Certainly, I am sure he would be alarming himself unduly if he thought there was any sort of coercion of labour intended. He can put that out of his mind. But as we are in the hands of this House in regard to debate, it seems to me that these matters could be better debated on another occasion, when the noble Earl has had the chance of studying the answers which may be given on one or two of these points by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords the last thing I wanted to do was to raise a wide question. I was trying to keep
952
very narrowly to the terms of the last sentence in the list of measures which the noble Earl announced, namely,
"we intend that resources of skilled manpower and of capacity should he released in order to put them behind the export effort."
I wondered if he could tell us at least by whom and in what way, because it seems to me that if this does not mean direction of manpower, it means nothing at all.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think it would be only courteous to reply to the noble Earl. He can rest assured that there is no question of the direction of labour; but if he asks me what are the measures involved here, I suggest that he raises the whole question in the House. Some of the largest issues undoubtedly are touched on have, and, with great respect, I am afraid I have no intention of going further this afternoon than I have done.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, further to what my noble friend says, surely what lies behind this Statement is a credit squeeze, exactly the kind of thing which the Labour Party always said they did not believe in. That is the only way to release these resources. Can the noble Earl tell us how soon the credit squeeze is to come on?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is being serious, I can only imagine that he has not studied the programme of the Labour Party. I take it that his remarks are ironic, and perhaps he will allow them to go on record as a reflection of his attitude without expecting an answer from me. Frankly, we feel that these things are too serious at the moment for irony.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he anticipates making a Statement in your Lordships' House shortly, either to confirm or to contradict the inspired statements in the Press that the Government are prepared to make certain statements to allay the fears of the investors of this country regarding the scope of the corporation tax and capital gains tax? There have been obviously inspired statements. They do not bear the print of authority. Will the noble Earl tell us whether he will be prepared to go further than his noble friend was in this House last Thursday, when he said that we should have to wait until his right honourable friend

953
the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement about Budget Day of next year?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, who has been in this House about as long as I have, is perfectly well aware that I do not intend to add in any significant way to the Statement—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will restrain himself until I have flushed the answer. I do not intend to add significantly to this Statement. I had thought I was doing a courtesy to the H ruse in making this Statement at all; I was under that impression. This is rather a borderline case because it is a financial statement. If the noble Lord will allow me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, first, he is perfectly well aware that I do not mean to add to this Statement. He is also perfectly well aware that any matter can be raised by giving notice in this House. We are not afraid to debate these issues with him or with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. If I was discourteuos to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I am sorry; that was not intended. We are perfectly ready to debate these and all other matters at any time, but this afternoon I do not intend to add significantly to this Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did not wish to intervene, but the noble Earl said on two occasions that he was doing the House a courtesy by repeating this Statement. I remember an occasion not so long ago when the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and Members of the Opposition at that time took me to task, when I was Leader of the House, for not repeating in this House a routine, run-of-the-mill Statement on the Bank rate. I got into terrible trouble, and the question why we did not repeat the Statement here was debated for forty-five minutes. We then came to the conclusion, through the usual channels behind the scenes, that all Statements which were of significance and importance to our financial affairs should be repeated in this House. I hope the noble Earl the Leader of the House is not now going back on that, and suggesting that he is doing the House a courtesy by repeating a Statement of this magnitude and seriousness.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I said I was doing something that was courteous, I still think that is true. I certainly did not think that I was conferring a favour on the House by making this Statement. I think the House is entitled to this Statement, but in our view it was rather a borderline case. I was not aware of the discussions to which the noble Lord referred, but he can be quite sure that the conclusion reached will be honoured, now and in the future.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, may I try to clear myself of the charge of irony? I believe as much as any noble Lord opposite that it is necessary to do something pretty drastic for exports, and that it may be necessary to release for the export market certain capacity which is now supplying the home market. I also think that the size of the borrowings that has just been arranged is very largely due to the muddle the Government have made of their problem since they came into office. But, since we are in this position, may I ask the noble Earl this? Is it not essential to use the quickest and most effective method there is to reduce home demand in some directions, in order to do better in the export market, and will he not say that such actions are the kind the Government have in mind?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, knows perfectly well that I do not intend to answer questions of that kind, because I think it is important that this House should study the Answers given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to questions no doubt of this character and we may well want to debate these matters. I think that is extremely likely. The noble Viscount raises very wide questions, and if I began to answer them we should be in the middle of a debate already. I do not want to be discourteous, but I have no intention whatever of involving the House in a debate this afternoon.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wish only to raise one point. I am grateful to the noble Earl for making the Statement he did, and I share the view expressed on both sides of the House that this is not the most appropriate moment for discussing it. The only

955
reason why I rise is that I am interested in constitutional matters, and I thought there was one implication in his Statement which could hardly be intended. I have no desire, and I do not think that any noble Lord in any quarter of the House has the desire, that this House should become involved in matters which are of exclusive concern to the other place, but this Statement, though made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went far beyond the matters which are the exclusive concern of another place. It mentions Defence, the release of manpower resources, and all kinds of things which the other place would certainly not claim to be their exclusive concern. If I understand the noble Earl the Leader of the House correctly, he did not, I hope, mean to imply that this Statement did not go far beyond matters which are the exclusive concern of the other place.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should be inclined to agree with the noble Lord. I ventured to make this Statement because I felt it did go beyond the exclusive concern of another place. I was not a party to the discussions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, earlier, which, I gather, drew up some procedure in regard to these Statements. All I can say is what I said just now: that I am sure agreed procedure will be carried out.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question which does not go beyond the main point of the credit which he announces in the Statement? What I should like to know is whether the 3,000 million dollars affects, or constitutes part of, the 6,000 million dollars which the International Monetary Fund is also authorised to borrow for the purpose of providing liquidity resources?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord had better wait for the replies of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but this operation stands on its own.

MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, perhaps we may now return to a subject on which there will be rather less feeling and on which the House will find itself able to take a more approving view, because I am sure that this Bill will receive a welcome from all sides of the House, just as much as the House will have appreciated the clear and pleasant speech which the noble Lord made in introducing it to us. I think it was the first Second Reading speech that he has made since his elevation to Ministerial rank, and I am sure we all wish to congratulate him on the pleasant and effective way in which he carried out his duty.
This is a very necessary Bill and, from many points of view, is long overdue because it is obvious, and has been for a long time, that it is highly desirable that there should be in this great capital city—one of the great cities of the world—a really effective and properly housed museum relating to its history. The Guildhall Museum has been miserably housed for a long time. The City of London is a treasure house of Roman antiquities, and the discoveries which have been made there of recent years have been not only of interest to the people of London, or even of the British Isles, but of world-wide significance. The astonishing interest in archaeology of all kinds, and particularly, perhaps, in this country, in the classical Roman antiquities, has been one of the most interesting developments in the period since the war. Some of the discoveries made over the last years have been quite phenomenal, and it has really been miserable that they could not be properly dealt with and displayed. Therefore I am quite sure everybody will welcome this Bill from that point of view.
Then there is the London Museum itself. If your Lordships will forgive me a personal reminiscence, may I tell you that when, as an Oxford undergraduate, I first came to work in London during the First World War in the foreign trade department of the Foreign Office, that department was housed in Lancaster House, where the already interesting

957
London Museum was shrouded in dust sheets and covers. Every now and then, passing down the parts of the building which were not in use, when attempting to deal with contraband and problems of that kind with which we were concerned, one caught glimpses of fascinating historical objects, and this made me determined that one of the things I would do after the war was over and the Museum was re-opened to the public would be to pay ii a visit. That was the forerunner of a number of visits to what was, and indeed one of the most fascinating of all the valuable museums that we have in this country.
I think it was a thousand pities that the Government decided that the Government hospitality side should have precedence over the educational side because this Museum is a highly important educational institution. While I appreciate that the new building in the City will be a valuable one and commensurate to the importance of the work being done, I feel a little sorry that the London Museum should be, so to speak, moved away from the general centres of culture, which, if I may say so, lie rather to the West of Barbican.
I should like to joint in the tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, paid to the Harcourt and Esher families, who have been leaders of this important project, and to whom we owe not only this but many other important cultural achievements in this country. As one who worked for many years with the late Lord Esher in the National Trust and in other of his activities, I think it would have been fitting, if only he had still been speaking from the Liberal Benches, where we listened to him with so much delight on many occasions, if he had been able to be here this afternoon and make one of his very witty and charming speeches in support of this Bill.
I do not want to take up a great deal of time this afternoon, but there are one or two wider aspects in connection with this Bill that one might touch upon for a minute or two. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, pointed out that museums of local antiquities and local interest are the concern of local authorities; and no doubt as a general proposition that is true. I feel, however, that we carry that principle too far, if the noble Lord will
958
allow me to say so, and there is not enough support from the centre. There are up and down the country a number of local museums, many of which I have visited from time to time, which are really collections of bric-à-brac, but in them there is a great deal of extraordinarily interesting and valuable material. But the local authorities are very often not equipped to deal with it. I know of one or two cases where something has been clone to improve the situation, but, by and large, we are really wasting a great deal of valuable, interesting and beautiful material. I should like the central authorities to have a look at this problem. The Ministry of Education is the obvious place for it, but I do not feel that it has been pulling its weight over recent years in this regard.
We have here a very fine project in which the Government, the City of London Corporation and the Greater London Authority are doing a great deal. This seems to me to be a valuable pointer, and shows that, while it is no doubt arguable that in the case of our great capital city, which is the centre of attraction, not only to Commonwealth visitors but to increasing numbers of visitors from all over the world, there should be this historical Museum for London, the history of London and the many things which have gone on in London are of world-wide importance. They are of interest not only to Londoners, but to those, like myself, who come to live and work in London and indeed provide such a large part of the effective population of this great metropolis at the present time. Therefore, I think that this Bill points the way to what may be valuable developments.
I want to underline still further what I have already said about the educational value of museums. Museums started really as collections of interesting things—almost jackdaw collections, flung together—and it was a long time before their value as educational institutions was realised and I am afraid that even now it has not completely sunk in in this country. Great improvements have been made of recent years in the British Museum. When I first used to go there frequently it was a dreadful place from the point of view of the exhibition of the very valuable

959
objects which repose there. We had a debate in this House the other day on adult education. I do not think anybody stressed the importance of museums in connection with adult education, and yet they have a valuable part to play in adult educational work.
Anyone who has had the pleasure of visiting the great museums, particularly in the Scandinavian countries, where a tremendous amount of attention has been paid to the problem of displaying these beautiful and interesting things and making them educationally valuable, will appreciate what can be done. It has been a source of very proper criticism of the British Museum that they have lagged behind in this respect. I have said that the British Museum has been making a great deal of progress, but in some of the Provincial museums nothing like the same progress is evident. I say this because I think the Governors and those in charge of the new London Museum might very properly from the beginning pay real attention to the problem of using the Museum as an instructional and educational part of the work which is going on in this country. I hope that this matter will be borne carefully in mind.
To return to London, it is high time that London should be able to hold up its head again. Those of us who visit Paris and the other great capitals in Europe know perfectly well how much attention is paid to this type of museum, and it has been rather a shame to many of us that during these last years, largely owing to the accommodation problem and to lack of finance, we have been so far behind. This gives us an opportunity of once more raising our heads among the great cities of Europe, and I hope that every advantage will be taken of it.
4.31 p.m.
LORD EBBISHAM: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for more than a few moments on this Bill. I should perhaps declare an interest in this subject, in that I am one of the members of the Interim Board of Governors appointed by the City Corporation. There is only one matter which I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It concerns
960
the salaries and other working conditions of the staff.
I very much welcome all that he said on this aspect, but there was one matter to which he did not refer. The City Corporation, in conjunction with the staff association, has some elaborate machinery for dealing with disagreements and disputes, going to arbitration, and matters of that kind. On the whole, I think that that machinery works extremely well. Under this Bill, the staff of the new Museum will come under the ægis of the Corporation, and it is therefore important, as the noble Lord said, that they should be completely on all fours with the Corporation staff. It is therefore felt desirable by the Corporation that something should be put into the Bill to deal with this question of possible disputes and disagreements. There is nothing at the moment, and I would ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to consider this question with a view to putting down an Amendment at a later stage in the Bill's progress.
With that proviso, may I say how warmly the Corporation welcome this Bill, and how much they are looking forward to working both with the Treasury and with the Greater London Council on producing what we all hope will be a most valuable institution for London.
4.34 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I, too, have only one point to make. My only useful achievement in the last Session of Parliament was to persuade the then Lord Chancellor to introduce into his Public Libraries and Museums Bill, at the Report stage, a new clause which is now Section 20 of the 1964 Act. That section says that museum premises may be used
"for the holding of meetings and exhibitions, the showing of films and slides, the giving of musical performances, and the holding of other events of an educational or cultural nature …"
From the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was speaking just now, no doubt he was pleased with the words:
"… the holding of events of an educational … nature…."
I did not suggest then, and I do not now, that a museum is an appropriate place in which to hold regular, organised activities every evening of the week; but I should have thought that there was nothing like the occasional special event

961
to attract into a museum many people who form some vague intention of visiting the museum at some time, yet always find themselves too busy actually to bring themselves to go. Having been attracted into the museum by some special event that interested them, many of them cannot help taking an interest in other things which they see there, and in that way they may become regular visitors to the museum, and the cultural side of their lives may be enriched. I therefore invite the Minister in charge of this Bill to introduce into it a clause similar to Section 20 of the 1964 Act, so that this same result can be achieved in the case of this new Museum. I invite the Minister to do this, rather than offering to do it myself, because I feel sure that the chances of success in Committee of inserting a new clause on these lines would be greater if it were introduced by the Minister than if it were introduced by me.
The further reason why I ask for this is that, if it is not done, people may suppose that Parliament does not wish special events to be held in this particular Museum. They may say to themselves, "There was the precedent of Section 20 in the 1964 Act, and Parliament did not follow it in this Act. Therefore, it does not wish special events to be held in this Museum." If Parliament does wish special events to be held in this Museum, it is, I think, important that the precedent should be followed, and that a section of this kind should appear in this new Act. That is all I have to say. If the Minister does not feel able to accept my invitation, I shall myself, if I receive the slightest encouragement, attempt to introduce a new clause.
4.37 p.m.
LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, I would adduce two further reasons why your Lordships should support this Bill. The first is that I have had an opportunity of looking at the report and the plans prepared by the architects, to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred in introducing the Bill. I am extremely happy wit these plans. I believe that it will be a magnificent building, worthy of t le exhibits it has to contain, and I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I believe that they will be every bit as
962
worthily housed in this very beautiful and interesting new building as they were in Lancaster House.
I should also like to say, in reference to the problem of the 200-ft. office tower block which is to surmount the Museum, and which, in the circumstances at present obtaining, may cause the project to be delayed, that I believe it is the opinion of the architects that from a purely architectural and;esthetic point of view, a 200-ft. tower block would be much better not there.
The second point I would make is that some of the contents of the new joint Museum should appeal very strongly to your Lordships. There is something there for all of us, both in this House and in another place. There is a Speaker's coach, a Speaker's Chair and a Woolsack. There is also a manuscript Journal of the House of Lords in Cromwell's time; and there is even something for the noble Baronesses—material from the Suffragette period.
4.39 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, may I conclude this debate on the Second Reading by first of all stating very much of an interest as a Trustee of the London Museum for a long time past, and a member of the Interim Board of the proposed new Museum. That gives me the opportunity of expressing to your Lordships the great regret of the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, at being unavoidably absent this afternoon, and of saying on his behalf how much we appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has covered practically all the ground that any of us Trustees or members of the Board of either side could have wished to say. It remains for me only to pick up, if I may with your Lordships' permission, two points in the remarks of earlier speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is, of course, entirely right in saying that the progress in museum development and scope in other countries, in Europe and in North America, has been, I regret to say, greater than that in this country. But the plans for this new Museum, to which the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, referred, and which he said he had had the advantage of seeing, have been prepared (and, I

963
may say, are still being prepared) as the result of intensive investigation of what has been done, and is proposed to be done, in other countries in Europe and in North America, and I hope that the Museum will be the outcome of the most modern thought in museum development and construction.
At this point, it is perhaps appropriate to say that when this Museum is built it will be the first major museum that has been built in this country since the Victoria and Albert Museum was built over two generations ago. I am not sure that some of us who are interested in this aspect of history, education and culture in this country think it a very worthy position to occupy, that we have built no new museum for over 60 years.
My Lords, this Museum is a happy marriage (perhaps "marriage" is the wrong word to use, since there are not two parties but three) of three parties who have not previously had much connection with each other on a subject of this sort. That has, of course, involved a point that was made about the employment of personnel, who, in the case of the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum, have depended on two entirely different authorities. I would say, however—and here I speak certainly for the Trustees of the London Museum, and also, I hope, for the whole of the interim Board of the new Museum—that we do not anticipate any difficulty whatsoever in marrying the varying conditions which at the present moment are enjoyed by the staffs of the two museums that are to be merged.
In the first place, no member or person employed by the London Museum under Civil Service rules and regulations need, if he or she does not wish, join the staff of the new Museum. Since, however, the field in which new personnel can be found for museums of this standing is so limited, it will be the wish of the new Board, as it is of the interim Board, that all those people who possibly can will transfer to the new Museum; and that, in turn, involves that they should have whatever advantages of remuneration and prospects hereafter, in the way of pensions, are adequate to their needs. That is the view of the interim Board, as I know, and certainly of the Trustees of the London Museum. Should any
964
member of the staffs find it impossible to join the new Museum, when, in due course, after the vesting date, the terms are made, that person will be able to retire on whatever are the appropriate conditions for the termination of employment under the Civil Service rules. But we do not anticipate that anything of that sort is likely to happen.
Secondly, I must say that two of the three partners in this enterprise, the Corporation of the City of London and the Greater London Council, are both themselves large employers of labour and are well aware of how conditions of service make, and can alone make, for the happy employment of the staff. Moreover, that view is certainly one that will be shared by the remaining third of the members of the Board who will be appointed in due course.
Finally, it may be relevant to point out that the people who pay are going to have a say in how people are employed; and of the people who pay, one-third is the Treasury—that is, the Government of the time when the vesting date takes place. So, with all the good will of the two Boards, the interim Board and the Trustees, we cannot see that there is any chance of any difficulty, and we do not feel that at this stage the insertion of an Amendment into the present Bill is necessary. When the time comes after the vesting date for this matter to be considered, it can, we believe, be dealt with by regulation.
My Lords, so far as Lord Chorley's point is concerned, about making this Museum worthy of this country, I would say merely that that is the principal objective which those of us who have been concerned for many years in trying to bring about this merger have had in mind: that we shall have a new and beautiful museum worthy of one of the greatest cities in the world.
One final point, if I may be allowed to make it. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, when introducing this Bill, stated that he was surprised at how few people in London with whom he had been in contact were aware of the London Museum or, indeed, of the Guildhall Museum. Actually, the figures of attendance at the London Museum, considering its "un-get-at-ability", which requires people to go on foot because they cannot go by bus, car or taxi, has certainly

965
mitigated against the use of the Museum by the general public. But the main reason is that neither the London Museum not the Guildhall Museum have been adequately housed for the last twenty years. Neither Museum has been built to show what it has. A great part of the contents of what ought to be shown in the London Museum remains in storehouses, while those noble Lords who have seen what there is in the Guildhall Museum housed in a courtyard of the Royal Exchange, and knowing nothing about them, cannot possibly appreciate the treasures and valuables of importance which the Museum has.
So, in spite of the incongruity of employment and background of the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum, there has at no time, in our rather lengthy negotiations to bring about the outcome contained in the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon, been any doubt in our minds about the necessity, desirability and enthusiasm shown by both sides to merge these two Museums into a tripartite partnership consisting of two parts of this great Metropolis and, as the third part, Her Majesty's Government, through the instrumentality of the Treasury.
My Lords, with that, I can only say that I hope that the Bill will go through substantially in the form in which it has been presented to your Lordships' House to-day, because we believe (I say this in reply to Lord Airedale's remarks) that the powers in the present Bill are adequate and sufficient to provide for all those ancillary activities to which he referred. On behalf of all the Trustees of the London Museum, and, I believe, of the members of the interim Board, and my noble friend and colleague, Lord Harcourt, in his regretted absence, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for the way he has introduced this Bill and commended it to your Lordships.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I just say that the same answer that he gave me just now was the answer that the Lord Chancellor of the day gave to me on a former occasion, when he said that the powers already in the Bill were adequate. I made another appeal and asked whether he would include another clause in the Bill, so that it would be plain for all to see; and on reconsidera-
966
tion the Lord Chancellor was good enough to do so.
4.50 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this debate has been a very pleasant one for me because it has been wholly one of support for the Bill the Second Reading of which I moved. I must say that I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, for his knowledgeable speech and certainly I should like to support his graceful reference to the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt. I regretted as much as he did the fact that he was unable to be with us here to-day. I was also grateful to the noble Lord for the fact that he strongly supported the assurances that I tried to give in my speech to the staff. Clearly I shall have to consider what he said, at the same time as I consider the suggestion made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ebbisham, about the necessity for including additional clauses to ensure that the machinery he mentioned will find some expression in the Bill as a further assurance to the staff. I will certainly consider the two noble Lords' points at the same time, and I hope I shall not disappoint too much one or other of them.
Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, made my reply speech for me. He was clearly so well informed about everything that there is very little for me to reply to. But there are some things I must say. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for their remarks. Lord Chorley suggested that at the present time there is not enough support for local museums from the centre; and I am bound to agree with him, particularly on the point that in so many cases first-class material is hidden or not properly used by local museums in local authorities that are not particularly well versed in the art of showing to the best advantage the possessions which they have, many of which are so valuable.
Really, this co-operation, this unique experiment between the centre and local government, is a starting point. Clearly we shall have to see how it works out, and there is the possibility that we might in the future extend the participation of Government in the work of the local authority in this regard. But I must admit I am always a little frightened of

967
the central authority poking its finger too much into the work of local authorities. They must be allowed a large degree of autonomy, and I am always a little bit cautious of the centre, despite the fact that at this moment I am said to be at the centre.
Having regard to his eminence in this field, I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, was happy with the plans that have been produced. To some extent, of course, he answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about the siting in the East End of the City and not near the existing museums. I am not sure it is right, but certainly the decision has been taken: it is going to be the Museum of London, and perhaps the very centre of London;s the place for such a museum.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has given me something to think about, and I must think about it. He, too, to some extent, was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. On this point of whether there should be included a special clause, as was inserted into the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964, we feel, and we certainly hope, that the Governors of the Museum will wish to follow the modern trend of making museum premises available for a wide variety of cultural purposes. The only question that arises—and this is the question between the two noble Lords—is whether Clause 3 really does what is required in this field. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made a very strong point. The fact that this provision was included in the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964—that is, the section which permits the holding of concerts and so on—but is left out of a subsequent Bill appears to me to be a point of some validity. If we include it in one Act and omit it from a subsequent Act there is some little danger of someone saying, "Well, in this subsequent Act they clearly do not want these activities to be carried out." I feel it would not do any harm to include the provision in the Bill; indeed it might be something really worth while. I certainly will consider this. If, after further consideration, I feel that the Government ought not to put down an Amendment I will inform the noble Lord and leave
968
it to his good judgment whether he will put down such an Amendment himself.
I do not think there are any further points to answer. Clearly I shall study everything that has been said to-day. end as I began this little speech on this part of the Second Reading, by thanking all those who participated in the debate, and particularly all those who have done so much to bring this Bill to the point where we are to-day seeing its Second Reading in this House.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DUMPING OF MOTOR CARS AND LARGE REFUSE
4.57 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what recent developments there have been in dealing with the problem of the dumping of old motor cars and other major items of litter. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on January 23 last I asked in your Lordships' House an Unstarred Question: Whether Her Majesty's Government
"are aware that an increasing quantity of unwanted bedding, furniture, motor cars, et cetera, is being dumped on the verges of country roads near large towns …?"
In the course of asking that Question I made a speech of twenty minutes, which on re-reading it I think is a very beautiful speech; I could repeat it word for word to your Lordships probably without being "spotted", but I do not propose to do that.
My theme, of course, was not the stuff that is collected on the ordinary round of the dustman; I was concerned with the exceptional items. The burden of my speech was that until it is as cheap and convenient to get the stuff collected by some official channel as it is to dump it in the countryside it will continue to be dumped in the countryside, because the law is unenforceable. My noble friend Lord Hastings, then Parliamentary Secretary, made a very informative and thorough reply, and the burden of his reply was to the effect that powers exist but they are variedly exercised. The position to-day is more or less the same as it was in January last.
There is more publicity of the matter, I think. I received with my last rating demand a printed slip which I do not think I have received before, telling me how to get rid of this stuff; I have never noticed it before. When I last inspected my neighbour's gulley which I mentioned in my speech, it contained two armchairs. There are no armchairs there to-day. And certain parts of the country have been cleared by private enterprise, by Scouts and otherwise. But the dumping goes on. My noble friend said that in May, 1963, a Working Party was appointed on refuse collection
"To examine the facts of refuse collection; to what extent it is unsatisfactory what the difficulties are, and which methods are proving most successful and to consider what advice can be given to local authorities on how to obtain the best results."
The main object of my démarche this evening is to find out if the Working Party has reported, and what they have reported.
My noble friend said that the problem of the unwanted motor car is a rather separate one from the rest of the trouble. Obviously he is right in that. To-day we are dealing principally with motor cars of pre-war and immediate post-war vintage. The pre-war ones are getting scarcer and scarcer, and of the post-war vintage the number put on to the home market was small. But in ten years' time there is going to be a tremendous flood of these things to dispose of. My noble friend said there were various systems, some of which he outlined, and some cost money. He mentioned £5 or so to the owner. But when one considers who are the owners, one realises that £5 should not be treated in a light-hearted manner. On the whole, they are the impecunious and rather irresponsible youth or the poorer working man, neither of whom is going to pay £5 to dispose of his old motor car if he can lease it in some place on a dark night and get away with it.
I submit that we shall get nowhere until we get an official system for collecting these things—something in the nature of an official dump to which the vehicle can be pushed, towed or driven, there to find its last resting place without payment to anybody. Those of your Lordships who had the pleasure of seeing a film called Goldfinger will remember that at one stage in that exciting epic a car, complete with occupant, was being put into a machine. It was a big Ameri-
970
can car and it was turned into a little square of metal, about 18 ins. cube. Such machines do exist. I cannot recollect whether this machine was mobile or not. It probably could be made mobile. But, clearly, a machine of that nature is required to tour these dumps and to squash these poor, unwanted motor cars—but without the owners.
I am not going to make a long speech. I merely say that the country dwellers are much exercised over the whole problem, which is increasing. As prosperity increases in the country, so people want to get rid of out-of-date and old-fashioned furniture, bedding and all sorts of things; and unless an official arrangement exists whereby they can get rid of these things without cost to themselves and without undue bother, they will continue to go out on a dark night and "plonk" them in the country. I therefore look forward to the Government reply as to the conclusions of the Working Party, because I feel that a Working Party set up in May, 1963, should have concluded something by now.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think we are all most grateful to my noble friend Lord Hawke for once again raising this sordid subject. Like him, I, too, have made many beautiful speeches on this subject to your Lordships. I hope—and I am certain your Lordships share my hope—that I shall not have to make many beautiful speeches on the subject in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who is to reply, is, I think, new to this subject. We look to him for a progress report.
May I, from my own point of view, give him a progress report of what has happened to me since I first raised this subject four years ago? The only point I ventured to raise, although a specific one, I think is illustrative of the whole problem. My trouble occurred clown the M.4 on the Cromwell Road Extension just before you get to St. Paul's School. I raised this matter in my capacity as President of the London Tourist Board, because we had received many complaints about what was left beside that road—that road being, of course, the principal artery out of London, the artery which runs down to London Airport and which is seen, both

971
coming and going, by most of the tourists reaching this capital city.
At the time I raised this matter there were lying in that particular piece of the road a motor-bike, an old cistern and two armchairs. When I raised the matter I was told, in rather soothing terms, that I should soon see a change. That, I think, is true; I have seen a change. The last time I looked, which was admittedly four weeks ago, the motor-bike, the cistern and the two armchairs had gone; but their place had been taken by a bedstead, two fire extinguishers and a hip bath. This was not what I had in mind when I raised the matter in your Lordships' House four years ago.
This road is now becoming even more important. Yesterday we opened the first stretch of the flyover continuing from the Chiswick Flyover. Within a short time it produced the most monumental traffic jam that London has seen for many years. I had always been under the impression that an underpass was usually the shortest distance between two bottlenecks; but I have now come to the conclusion that a flyover closely rivals it. This road is one of the most important in the country, and the view from it has become an outrage. I therefore raised the matter four years ago, hoping to get some clear-up in this respect. I made the normal fuss. I am not an expert in the disposal of hardware, and I do not know whether the change has been for the better or not.
This road is on the periphery of London. My noble friend referred primarily to problems in the country, but the problems are the same whether they be in the country, on the periphery, or, indeed, far worse, in the centre of the Metropolis. I do not know whether many noble Lords know George Street, which is an important street, even apart from the fact that I live at the end of it; but it runs between Baker Street and Edgware Road. There is at this moment—or there was three hours ago—a disused red Humber motor car parked outside the old Methodist church in George Street, and there it has been, to my certain knowledge, for six weeks. I believe all your Lordships could produce another example of your own of a car parked right in the centre of London for a considerable time.
972
I mentioned just now that I live at the end of George Street; I live actually in Montagu Square. Some little while ago the Metropolitan Police saw fit to move my car from outside my house—the house in which I was born and have lived the whole of my life. They towed it away to the pound in the Marylebone Road, from which I eventually redeemed it for a fee of forty "bob." I was a little upset about this. The Commissioner of Police wrote to me a very nice letter indeed, one much nicer than I deserved because of the rather "niggly" way in which I approached him. I said that his policemen might have informed me that they were going to take it away, especially in view of the fact that I was in my house at the time and the neighbours had told them to whom the car belonged. But undoubtedly I was in the wrong. I was committing an offence and, if I do it again, undoubtedly my car will be towed away again. What I am frightened of is that people may get wind of this trend and, instead of parking their disused Humber motor cars outside the Methodist church in George Street, they will decide to leave them outside my house in Montagu Square, and the police will tow them away. This is not the solution I am advocating to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison to-day.
It illustrates the real difficulty which faces us. The trouble is that this is everybody's problem but it is nobody's business. When we had the trouble in Cromwell Road the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who replied for the Government at the time, made inquiries. It was clear to me afterwards that several people were involved: the Ministry of Transport, which had built the road; the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it then was, which was the planning authority; the L.C.C.; and the local authority itself—all of them and none of them. The buck was passed gently round, and that is the trouble.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, referred to the country problem. We all remember the picture that appeared in The Times showing old cars parked in a beautiful Kentish orchard. They had not been put there by the inhabitants of that village but by outsiders. It is not fair to expect the inhabitants of small country towns and villages to pay

973
for the removal of derelict cars put there by strangers. In other words, the buck is once more passed round. This is a national problem. Just as the disposal of our refuse from dustbins is carried out on well understood grounds, so the disposal of these heavy pieces of junk should become a national matter and be dealt with on a national basis. It is no good passing laws and by-laws which nobody is going to respect, because one can never discover anybody dumping their cars on one's doorstep and waiting for the police tow them away.
What I hone the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will be able to tell us is that this problem will be accepted as a national problem and dealt with as such so that the man who has an old car, an old cistern, a hip bath and two armchairs to dispose of should not be regarded as a criminal, but as a man who is asking for a service which the country as a whole must now provide. Other countries do it. I do not know how Bond and "Goldfinger" disposed of their particular problem, but I believe that South Africa and the United States solve this problem by the compression of this junk and by towing it out to sea and dumping it. It is not a very complicated and expensive business so long as it is realised that it is somebody's job to do it, and not for the local authority to pass it to the Minister, to pass it to the police, and to pass it back to 48, Montagu Square.
The Government have quite wrongly, in my opinion, tried to get over many of their difficulties in the past few weeks by saying that such-and-such was a mess which they had inherited. This genuinely is a mess which the Government have inherited and the sooner they disinherit themselves the happier I shall be.
5.14 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say one thing? I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in what he said about this being a national problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, referred mainly to the urban areas, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to the city but I can assure your Lordships that this is a matter which affects the North of Scotland just as much as anywhere else. There are old cars dumped on the moors in Scotland,
974
as there are elsewhere. One thing I have never quite understood is which Department is supposed to deal with litter. At one time the Ministry of Agriculture had something to do with litter. Whether they have passed it on as rubbish to the new Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, I do not quite know. It would be interesting to hear the answer.
5.16 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I am sure that we are all much indebted, not only to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for introducing this subject, which is, of course, a very serious one, but also to the two noble Lords who have followed him. I listened with enthralled interest to the story of the passage of the two perfectly good armchairs which were first sighted at the bottom of the gulley in Lord Hawke's residence and were next discovered at the side of the Cromwell Road, from which place they vanished. This is really, of course, not only a serious matter but one which is going to need increasing attention for with more cars coming on to the roads, the disposal of defunct cars becomes more and more difficult and more and more essential.
I have been looking at the history of the matter. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that I read the whole of his speech. It lasted not for 20 minutes but for 29. It was excellent all through, even at the beginning and at the end. He did on a subsequent occasion receive an Answer: it was as late as May 13 this year. He told us the question he asked, but he omitted to tell us that the answer he was given about the Working Party was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 258 (No. 75), col. 231]:
"I do not yet know",
the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said,
"when the Working Party expect to report, but in view of the ground they have to cover they are not likely to complete their task before next year."
Though no doubt there has been some improvement in government since then, we have not been able to improve on the date of the Report of the Working Party. which has not yet completed its investigations. It had rather sweeping

975
terms of reference and, indeed, this question is fairly sweeping, because it covered the disposal of major litter, refuse, whatever you like to call it, as well as the motor cars. It included, in fact, the armchairs.
LORD HOBSON: And the hip bath.
LORD MITCHISON: It has been quite active and the state of affairs at present is this. In July of this year, after the Working Party had held a considerable number of meetings, a draft circular was sent round by the Ministry of Housing to local authorities to ask for their comments. It was also sent to other people who are concerned in this problem—that is to say, the firms whose business it is to deal with scrap of this kind. They are organised and have associations, and so on. Their comments were considered and the draft was revised, and on the 22nd of last month the circular went out again, I hope in a final form. I quite understand the feeling that I think all of us have, that this kind of problem ought to be dealt with as quickly as possible, but one must look at the realities of the matter.
It is perfectly true that technically a number of Ministries and authorities can be found to be concerned one way and another. There are, after all, a number of fields in which that happens nowadays, and it looks as though it cannot be avoided. But one has to see who are the people who are in a position to take effective action; and, while welcoming the conversion of noble Lords opposite to this form of somewhat centralised Socialism, which would treat it as a national matter and therefore a matter to be dealt with by the central Government, I am not quite sure that in this case I agree with them. It seems to me that this is one of those occasions where one must have a partnership between the local authorities and the central Government, and that in a matter of this sort it must be up to the local authorities to take effective action. This really is a case for people on the spot, and the authorities concerned are, of course, the borough councils, or corresponding authorities in the metropolis, and in the country the district councils—not the county councils, as I understand it.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I amplify one point there? Could the noble Lord say something about the principle of financial responsibility? Admittedly, the man on the spot has to do the clearing up, except possibly with the motor car. But why should the poor rural people have to pay for the urban junk? That is the crux of the matter.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, one always get into this kind of difficulty, but I think the only way out of it is to reflect upon who can, in fact, do the job. The people who can do the job are, in the country, the smaller authorities. Of course it is in the nature of motor cars that they go about from one place to another, and when they are "dead" they may be dumped in a place which has had no previous connection with them. I appreciate that.
But surely the whole essence of the matter is that the local authority concerned should not be too large an authority, and it should be the authority in the place where the mischief has actually arisen—the dumped car, the dumped armchair or whatever it is. Therefore, although one can go into the legislation and talk about it, it seems to me that the substantial point is that this job has got to be done by the local authorities. They must have general directions from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry principally concerned in this, as at the end of the day it is their business.
Actually, there is not much money involved, one way or another. The scrap dealers who get the stuff sometimes want to be paid for taking it away, and they sometimes can make something out of it—it depends what it is. I was rather scared of the suggestion that not only the "dead" motor car itself but its passengers also, should be placed in a press of some sort and turned into a cube of a small amount of metal. But what happens in films may not always happen in real life. There is, of course, the difficulty that the car itself has coachwork and so on, and there really is nothing to be done with that.
One of the minor nuisances of this business is that the refuse gets burnt over the countryside and very often makes a very unpleasant smell. When one has a lump of metal at the end of the day—this has been tried out in

977
America, I think, as the noble Lord said—the difficulty is that one has mixed metal, which is often not much use to anybody. There are parts that the steel industry, for instance, can use as scrap; but if one just takes whatever is there and piles it up together, there is not likely to be a very useful product. It is altogether not a very simple question.
Returning for a moment to the way matters stand at present, I would say that this draft circular is now under consideration, and I hope that a circular will be issued round about the turn of the year—perhaps before, perhaps just afterwards. Local authorities take a little time to move, and one can understand the difficulty; they have to put things up to meetings that are very often held monthly, and so on. But I think it is essential that the lines of the circular should be right.
There are some encouraging features about this matter. The local authorities who have been consulted over this have shown real good will in the matter. They appreciate that this must be their job and their responsibility, and I am sure that most of your Lordships, at any rate, will feel that that is the right way—in fact the only way—to tackle the matter in practice.
I turn from that to one other aspect of the matter. What about the man who has a highly decayed motor car and wants to get rid of it? The advice I would give him, and I have asked about this, is that he should ring up the local council—that is to say, the district council in the country or the borough council in the town—and ask them what they can do about it. In some places—not perhaps quite everywhere, which ought to be the case—they are doing quite a bit about the problem. Clearly, the issue of this circular is going to bring that side of the matter to a head, and I hope that this debate will also have its effect. If that happens I understand that the local authority is likely to be able to tell the man what to do with the car. If he gets in difficulty about that, I suggest that he might write either to his Member or to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, if he so wishes, and see that something is done and some scheme put into action for dealing with this refuse.
I want to say one more thing to noble Lords about the matter. I think it is too
978
much to expect local authorities, or indeed anybody, to go round and collect disused motor cars. Somehow or another they must be brought to some place where they can be properly handled and dealt with. I noticed two expressions used by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. He first of all spoke about "the collection of cars", and he then referred to a "dump". I think the dump is the obvious choice to which one is driven.
I have tried to be as helpful as I can be in what is a very serious matter, regardless of whether or not it has been discussed before, and one which, unless it is attended to and kept alive by the assiduity of public-spirited noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke (if he will allow me to say so), stands a risk of being neglected while other matters are dealt with. Therefore, I am very glad that the question has been raised. I have done the best I can to help, and the best I can to find out the realistic answer, as I believe it to be, to the general difficulties and to the particular problem of the man who has got a piece of rather intractable refuse to get rid of.