Lords Sitting of 3 March 1966

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford
The Viscount Hall—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

USE OF POLICE MANPOWER
3.5 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 satisfied that the Metropolitan Police are making the maximum use of civilian manpower to eke out the shortage of police; and whether they could give an approximate figure for a specimen week of the percentage of manhours consumed in—

(a) traffic duties;

(b) clerical duties;

(c) any other relevant duties.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Metropolitan Police have for a long time made substantial use of civilians. This has increased in recent years and fresh ways of economising in police manpower are under continuous examination by the Commissioner. The establishment of full-time civilian posts in the Metropolitan Police has more than doubled in the last nine years. It has increased from 1,873 at the beginning of 1957 to 3,890 at the end of 1965. Including part-time staff, the actual civilian strength on January 31 was 5,201. Of the increase in full-time civilian posts 776 are at headquarters and 1,241 in divisions. Some branches, such as the Central Ticket Office, are entirely staffed by civilians. Others are staffed by a mixed complement of police and civil staff, Among the developments
774
which the Commissioner is at present contemplating are the replacement of police officers in divisional offices, the extended use of civil staff at courts, and the increased use of civil staff at headquarters, including training establishments. As an experiment special sub-divisional administrative units, with a mixed complement of police and civil staff, have been introduced in 17 subdivisions and if this pilot scheme is successful similar units will be set up in the other 65 sub-divisions.
I am sorry that the information requested by the noble Lord in the second part of his Question is not available. The Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University is shortly to carry out a limited survey to provide information of this kind.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full and informative reply, and I am very glad to hear that the Commissioner has in mind the changes which I envisage in my Question. But would the Minister not agree that it would be a good idea if some outside organisation were called in to recommend the changes necessary in the law which might be required to enable a far larger "civilianisation" of the police force to occur?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not think it is a question of a change in the law. To increase "civilianisation" (if I may use the noble Lord's word) of the police force is first a question of availability of staff. Certainly in the Metropolitan Area it is no easier to get typists than to get policemen. The other difficulty is that it is essential in the training of police, if they are to move on to higher posts, to have some clerical and administrative training. We are proceeding as quickly as we can, but the fact that we have more than doubled the civilian strength over the past nine years shows that we are proceeding in the way the noble Lord wishes.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, that is satisfactory so far as it goes, but may I suggest that perhaps the main organisational change might lie in the creation of a traffic corps which would be responsible entirely for the direction of traffic and the detection of traffic offenders, leaving able-bodied young policemen to catch criminals?
LORD STONHAM: My Lord, this is a matter which has been under consideration, but, again, there is a shortage of traffic wardens. There are over 200 vacant posts for traffic wardens at present. I do not think there is any early possibility of achieving what the noble Lord asks for.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, everybody knows how courteous the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is in answering Questions and how he wishes to answer them fully. But I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if he would note the length of the original Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. It makes it very difficult subsequently for any of your Lordships to speak briefly or to ask brief supplementary questions, when one is faced with an Answer of that length.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, prefaced those remarks with the tribute he paid to my noble friend Lord Stonham. All of us would agree that in the last eighteen months nobody has served the House better than Lord Stonham.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask a brief question which will require only a brief answer?—although I was not aware that the original Answer was particularly long. May I ask the noble Lord whether he would look into the question of the enormous waste of time on the part of the Metropolitan Police in having to give evidence on behalf of the Greater London Council in respect of persons alleged to have committed offences against the motor vehicle licence duty regulations? Is it not possible that this task could better be performed by officers of the Greater London Council?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is one of the matters which the Commissioner has under consideration, and it is not for me to say whether this evidence would be better given by officers of the Greater London Council. But certainly a great deal of this work is being done by clerical officers, not policemen, who come among the additional posts created in the divisions.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I did not intend to suggest any deficiency on the part of the police. I am not suggesting that the officers of the Greater London Council could do it better, but merely that they, and not the police, ought to be doing it, as it is, in fact, a matter for the Council and not for the police. It is a revenue offence and not a criminal offence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if there was any confusion it was in my reply and not in the noble Lord's question, which was quite clear. The only point of doubt in my mind was not about the advisability of what he suggested, but about the extent to which the Greater London Council could be involved.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did raise a point, I think of some importance, with regard to the procedure in your Lordships' House, and though the noble Earl echoed my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which is gratifying both to Lord Stonham and myself, he did not answer the question. Would he please see that the answers given by his noble friends on the Front Bench opposite take up less than about two columns in Hansard?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I would ask, is he aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was leading the House he was always complaining about our asking supplementary questions in Opposition? Is he allergic to questions and answers?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it goes without saying that any point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether for official or other reasons, will always be very carefully considered by me. He knows perfectly well that I am only too happy to discuss anything he raises at any time, and therefore if he raises that point, or any other point, I will gladly look into it. But I am afraid that I am not going to join in some blanket condemnation or criticism of my colleagues. I could easily retaliate very sharply about noble Lords in certain quarters of the House, but I would rather refrain from such remarks and say simply that I will gladly discuss anything whatever with the noble Lords Lord Carrington.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES
LORD HAWKE: 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 whether they are aware that the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1964 has had most unwelcome and unexpected results in the proliferation of gambling establishments all over the country; and whether they will bring forward the amending legislation required to put an end to this abuse and bring the situation into line with the expectations held by Parliament when they passed the Act.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Government are aware that the provisions on gaming originally enacted in the Betting and Gaming Act 1960, and now consolidated in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, have not secured the object intended; namely, to prevent the commercial exploitation of gaming for high stakes. They are accordingly reviewing the operation and objects of the law.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his succinct and very satisfactory reply.

DRINKING WATER ON BUSINESS PREMISES
3.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 consider that drinking water made available closely adjacent to W.C.s or urinals comes within the phrase "at suitable places" within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963; whether they have received any representations that such arrangements are undesirable; and whether they propose to take any action to remedy the position.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, the right position for the supply of drinking
778
water will depend upon the circumstances of the case. Adjacency to W.C.s or urinals is not necessarily objectionable, provided that there is no risk of contamination. Representations have been received from two local authorities. The Government do not at present see any need for action.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but does he remember that when the 1963 Act was going through the House it was agreed on all sides that there was a problem, and, in spite of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, we did not then find a solution? What I am asking is whether, now that the Act has been in force some time, Her Majesty's Government have no detailed views on this matter, because the enforcement officers are having some difficulty.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we feel that it is too early yet for us to take any decisions which would result in laying down any particular distances, or anything of that sort. We feel that it must be left to the good sense of the inspectors who are responsible for these premises. This was very largely the reply given on the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lindgren by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Newton, and up to now I tend to agree with them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that the enforcement officers find that common sense is not quite enough in this particular case?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords.

THE 70 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT EXPERIMENT
LORD CHESHAM: 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 confirm their statement that the 70 m.p.h. speed limit experiment was introduced to deal with the special problem of accidents during the winter months.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, although the

779
introduction of the current 70 m.p.h. speed limit experiment was occasioned by the appalling accidents on motorways early in the winter, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has made it plain from the start that the experiment might be extended, changed or dropped, depending on the evidence.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in that Answer he is referring to his present right honourable friend?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords.
LORD CHESHAM: Does the noble Lord agree that his other right honourable friend who devised and introduced this experiment, introduced it in plain words in his own official handout to the effect that it was for the winter months?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords, winter months were mentioned. But, equally, he said that it was to be for an experimental period of four months from Christmas until after Easter and that the measure could be extended if the limit proved effective in reducing accidents.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say at what stage, and when and where, his right honourable friend made available to the public this news, that it was no longer to do with the winter months?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it has been clear right from the start—there is nothing to hide; there is no hole-in-the corner business about it—that this was a road safety measure introduced because of appalling accidents. Under the Acts of 1960 and 1962 it is possible to have an experimental speed limit for four months only. It was made clear that, depending upon the evidence obtained from the experiment, the decision would be made whether it should be dropped, varied or made permanent.
LORD CHESHAM: May I take it, then, that the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, confirms that there is a definite possibility of this experiment being continued and that it has nothing to do with the winter months?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it depends upon the evidence which my right honourable friend will receive this
780
month from the Road Research Laboratory, from the Home Office, from the police, from the A.A., and from the R A.C.

JUDICIAL STANDING ORDERS
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I can explain to your Lordships quite shortly the reasons for the proposed Amendments to the Judicial Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. The first two Amendments arise out of the coming into force on the 14th of last month of Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1962. The effect of that section is to allow appeals from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland only by leave of the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland or of your Lordships' House. The proposed Amendments to Judicial Standing Orders Nos. II and III provide that Petitions for leave to appeal to your Lordships' House from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland should be lodged within one month of the order of that Court. They place Petitions for leave and appeals from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on the same footing as those from the Court of Appeal in England.
The third Amendment on the Order Paper, that to Standing Order VIIIA, is really a drafting Amendment occasioned by the coming into force on November 1 last of the Legal Aid and Advice Act (Northern Ireland) 1965. It is a drafting Amendment to remove the words "Area Committee" from that Standing Order because there are no Legal Aid Area Committees in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the following, Amendments be made to the Standing Orders regulating Judicial Business:—
Standing Order II
line 2, after (" 1934 ") insert (" or the Northern Ireland Act 1962,")
Standing Order III
line 3, after (" 1934 ") insert (" or the Northern Ireland Act 1962,")
Standing Order VIIIA
line 2, leave out (" an Area Committee for Legal Aid ") and insert (" a Legal Aid Committee ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATING BILL
3.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides a measure of short-term relief for some 2 million families whose rate bill weighs too harshly on them. Its object is to reduce the regressive element in rates. It is to come into operation on April 1 in England and Wales—that is to say, in less than a month's time. In Scotland, it will come into operation a month or two later. As an urgent measure of relief it has had in another place a Second and a Third Reading without any Division, and, on the other hand, a full and detailed discussion, with Amendments, in Committee and on Report. I hope that in these circumstances your Lordships will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, and during its subsequent stages to have regard to its urgency and the broad measure of agreement about it.
I must make it perfectly clear that this Bill does not represent any thoroughgoing or final attempt to deal with the difficult question of local government finance and its relation to the central Government. There have appeared recently two White Papers about local government finance: one, Cmnd. 2923, concerns England and Wales; the other, Cmnd. 2921, Scotland. Towards the end of the Paper about England and Wales the Government summarise their proposals for assistance from the Exchequer to local authorities. Their aim will be to keep the average increase in rate pound-ages more in line with the growth of the economy, for since the war the increase in social service expenditure has increased the total rates bill and, as the Allen Committee Report shows, the average rate payment of the domestic householder.
The White Paper ends with a paragraph which I will read to your Lordships. It is paragraph 20:
" These proposals are not presented as a long-term solution; they would be quite in-
782
adequate as such. Their purpose is to reduce the burden of rates and produce a fairer distribution of Exchequer assistance among local authorities, and so to strengthen the system of local government finance until there has been time to re-examine the whole position in the light of whatever conclusions emerge from the work of the Royal Commission on Local Government ".
It is obvious from the reasons that led to the appointment of a Royal Commission that the whole question of the relations between local and central finance must depend on the findings of that Commission and on the decision of the Government of the day as regards those findings. Meanwhile, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has appreciated with more vigour and depth than any of his predecessors the regressive character of rates and the hardship entailed by them on many householders of moderate means.
Accordingly, the Bill contains fundamentally two proposals by way of instant relief for some from that hardship. The first proposal is for domestic ratepayers to have the right to pay their rates by monthly instalments. This is set out in the first four clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 relates to England and Wales, Clause 2 to Scotland, and Clause 3 to the particular case of charities in effect paying the rates for their beneficiaries. Clause 4 contains a countervailing provision for a discount to be allowed to persons who would be entitled to relief but do not choose to pay by instalments under the Bill. That discount is at the discretion of rating authorities. Rates are inevitably a complicated matter, and the four clauses to which I have referred occupy the first nine and a half pages of the Bill as printed.
The next and the principal relief to be given by the Bill is in the form of rebates in respect of rates on dwellings. The rebates are related both to the total rate liability of the ratepayer and to his income. A domestic householder is entitled, in the words of Clause 5(1), to a rate rebate of an amount that represents:

"(a) two-thirds of the amount by which the applicant's reckonable rates determined in accordance with section 6 of this Act exceed £3 15s. Od., less

(b) five shillings for every complete pound by which the applicant's reckonable income determined in accordance with section 7 of this Act exceeds the appropriate limit so determined ".

783
The average liability for rates is about £36, and on that figure the ratepayer would get a maximum rebate of £19. If he is a single man with an income of £8 a week, that is the appropriate limit and there will be no deduction from the maximum rebate. If, on the other hand, his income is £10 a week, the deduction will be 10s. a week or £26 in a year, so that he will get no rebate. A married man can have £10 a week income without any deduction from his rebate, and a married man with a child 30s. a week more without any reduction. These, of course, are only instances, and I have taken simple ones. In the Bill, "reckonable rates" are defined in Clause 6, and "reckonable income" in Clause 7. I must point out that throughout this part of the Bill the figures refer to six-monthly periods, so that any application will have to be made and considered for such a period and no longer. A longer period would involve rating authorities in too many inquiries about charges during it; but Clause 5(6) enables a rebate to be continued over a whole year in proper cases.
Clause 8 is a machinery clause dealing with the method of affording rebates. Clauses 9 and 10 are financial and provide for Exchequer grants to rating authorities to meet in each case three-quarters of the aggregate net amount of rebates in any year. Clause 10 relates to the effect of rebates on rate deficiency grants in England. There follows an interpretation clause, a financial provision in a not unusual form, and the usual final clause. I hope that your Lordships will not wish me at this stage to go into detail about the provisions I have summarised. I propose, of course, to listen carefully to any comments your Lordships have to make, either on the Bill as a whole or on details of it, and to do my best to answer them at the end of the debate, hoping thereby to anticipate to some extent, since the Bill is an urgent one, discussion at later stages.
But may I make two general comments before I sit down? The first is that this Bill bears some superficial resemblance to what is now the Rating (Interim Relief) Act 1964, which became law after about twelve years of Conservative Government and not long before the 1964 Election. That Act did not apply to
784
Scotland. It provided for grants to local authorities to enable them to help cases of hardship, and hardship was not defined. The amount of the grants was determined, according to the number of persons over 65 years of age in the area of the local authority, so that prosperous places to which many people had retired might do well out of it. Its Second Reading in your Lordships' House took under two hours, and further proceedings about half an hour in all.
My second and last point is about money. The 1964 Act contemplated an Exchequer grant of the order of £6½ million in the first year. The amount actually spent on the grants I have mentioned has been rather under £6 million a year. This Bill, framed as I believe with greater precision, and with a fuller sense of Government responsibility in the matter, will entail for the benefit of the two million people concerned an expenditure of about £29 million a year including an Exchequer grant of three-quarters of that amount—say about £22 million. Notwithstanding the financial troubles from which we have only partly emerged, that seems to me a more appropriate figure to meet the mischief temporarily, and the way of granting it seems preferable to that in the 1964 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Mitchison.)
3.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, should have fallen in the error of attempting to compare the measure which your Lordships are now considering with that which was before the House under the last Administration. I do not know whether his reference to the length of time your Lordships took in considering the last Bill which touched on this subject is an invitation for us to spend more time, or a suggestion that we should spend less time, on this one. At any rate, I can set the noble Lord's mind at rest in saying that, although I think noble Lords on this side of the House will have no hesitation in welcoming the principles that underly both Parts of this Bill, we certainly shall not go any way with the noble Lord in agreeing that this measure is a thoroughly satisfactory one, or one which we should not have liked, had that been possible,

785
to comb through thoroughly, in order to see whether it cannot be improved beyond the improvement made to it in another place.
The noble Lord himself said that the Bill is not thorough-going and final. As to finality, that is one matter; as to thorough-going, the Bill certainly is not that; because although, as I say, the principles are unexceptionable, the methods adopted to deal with them are, on the one hand, highly complicated and, on the other, I think, unsatisfactory. But the noble Lord is in a very fortunate position (I hope he will not think I am being disrespectful when I say this) in that he is able to come to this House to-day and outline the Bill by little more than the rubric down the side of the clauses; because, as he well knows, there will not be any opportunity to discuss the Bill at any great length to-morrow, when we have to have the Committee stage. There are points which I think ought to have been discussed, matters which ought to be put right, and certainly Amendments which I should have liked to move. But, speaking for myself, I think it is best to accept this Bill as being a makeshift one and, as the noble Lord said, an urgent one, and to draw attention to some—though by no means all—of its failings and deficiencies. I do not think we should achieve much in trying to amend it, because I think that one ought really to have started again.
It is, of course, appreciated—and always has been appreciated—that rates are of a regressive nature. I doubt whether the present Minister is the only one who is aware of this fact, and I very much doubt whether he need draw quite so much credit to himself in using the epithets he has used about the rating system being "vicious" and so on, when he himself has very little idea of what he would put in its place. I am glad that that noble Lord is able to tell us this afternoon that we are at least going to wait until the Royal Commission have reported before we launch blindfold into some system of local income tax and hazard ourselves among the uncharted barriers of that particularly complicated subject. I think this will be most welcome relief to many people in this country who are afraid of some blind, headlong rush into this extremely complicated reform.
786
If we are to stick to rates as we know them, then this Bill is only in part about them. There is no doubt whatever that the first four clauses refer to rates and justify the title of this Bill as a Rating Bill. Nobody would have anything but support for the idea that payment by instalments should be made possible, and that rates should be made payable in less than the enormous doses that are so often required, when once-yearly or twice-yearly payments are the only method allowed by the rating authority. It is clear that if the full machinery by which these instalments are going to be dealt with has to be spelt out, then the clauses I have referred to will be very complicated. And so they are.
I think I have only one comment, apart from that of complication, to make on this. I hope that, despite the circular which I know has gone out on this subject, the Government will do their best to enable those rating authorities who now work, or who would like to work, a voluntary scheme for rebate to go on with that form of rebate, rather than change over to the full vigour of the first Part of this Bill—because there are quite vigorous provisions. And, as it deals with matters of levy of distress and so on, it is bound to cause a certain amount of litigation, whereas the voluntary schemes, I should have thought, would have coped perfectly well, where in force. I trust that the fact that we have in the first Part of this Bill this scheme which can be envoked by any ratepayer if he so wishes will not mean that the perfectly good and workable voluntary schemes already introduced by rating authorities will have to be abandoned—with all the extra expense and trouble that that would involve at the town hall and the county district offices.
When we come to the second Part of this Bill, which begins with Clause 5, we have a very different matter; because I think it was stressed more or less throughout by Government spokesmen in another place that, although to the outward eye this was a reform relating to rates, it is, in fact, a matter of taxation, and is dealt with as such. I think that this is perhaps an echo of the somewhat schizophrenic approach of the present Government towards local government finance, in that when this Bill was introduced the right honourable gentleman

787
the Minister may have been hankering after a local income tax, whereas today he is prepared to be a little more patient. At any rate, a tax Bill this second Part of it is; and there can be no doubt about it.
This admission having been made so clearly, it is surprising that the social requirement which is proposed—and not opposed by this side of the House—should be made to fall not upon the Exchequer but to a considerable extent upon the local ratepayers. Because, my Lords, although it is true that three-quarters of the cost of the rebates will be repaid to the rating authorities by Central Government, nevertheless there is a sum of, I believe, something in the region of £7 million which is to be found by the rating authorities. And, of course, that is not going to be spread evenly over the country. In some areas there will be far greater numbers of people entitled to rebates under the terms of the Bill than in others. In addition to that actual sum required for rebates, there is estimated to be an amount of the nature of, perhaps, £2½ million or £3 million to be spent on administration alone to work out the unbelievably complicated provisions of the second Part of the Bill; and, I should think, to some extent the instalment system as well.
My Lords, what is going to happen? It will mean that the rates will go up—there is no doubt about that. They will go up to the degree that a man earns £10 or less and, within the limit set by the Bill he will get a rebate. But this is not going to help the people just outside the rebate level, and as a result of the provisions of this Bill the rates will be put up more in some places than in others, but at a time when everybody is clamouring that they should be brought down. And they are being put up by something which has nothing to do with local government, nothing to do with the services provided in the rating authority's area; but by a matter of tax which on this occasion is being unloaded on to the inhabitants of the particular area concerned. This seems to me to be very questionable. It is a matter which ought to be thought of again, and certainly must never be lost sight of in the consideration of this Bill.
788
When we get down to the details, the noble Lord was, if I may say so, very wise to stick to simple examples. It is helpful that private enterprise has made available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office this afternoon, in the form of a rent-rebate table. the mathematical researches of the Rating and Valuation Association. I am sure that many treasurers of local authorities will be very glad to have this, because by the time you have worked through the provisions of Clauses 5, 6 and 7 you find that it is a matter that requires a very high degree of qualification in mathematics in order to deal with the problem at all. It is certainly beyond me. It is well known that lawyers are not capable of accurate arithmetic, and therefore I make no claim as to what would be the result in a borough treasurer's department, but I believe that this is a very complicated detail. Whether it is right or not, as I have said, I do not think that this House will have an opportunity really to discover. This we will forgo for a comparatively simple reason: I do not think the Government are expecting it to be accurately applied.
It may sound a very curious thing that the Government should put forward what is confessedly a tax Bill, or half a tax Bill, and then encourage those who are to administer it to deal with by means of rough justice. But this is, of course, what the treasurers are being invited to do by the Minister, who said in another place that the Bill
" will do rough justice; it will not do more. If the treasurers try to run it with the care and skill and fine distinctions and legal theology which may go into a tax system proper, the scheme will not work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Vol. 722 (No. 20), col. 53, 6/12/65.]
If that is what the Minister says, it is perhaps just as well that your Lordships have not the task of trying to make it better, because it is clear that it cannot be accurately applied at all, and that is the Minister's own view.
So we have really only to comment on one other most extraordinary provision in the second part of this Bill. What has been invented is a new form of assessing income. We are not to use the form used for income tax purposes. We are not to use any of the "disregards" and the method of assessing used by the National Assistance Board. We are subject to the provisions, put in at a rather late stage as

789
a result of what was said in the Standing Committee in another place, in Clause 6; that is to say, in subsections (5) to (7). We are to use a completely arbitrary system of basing a rebate on all the income that a claimant may have, with the exception of any income he gets from a lodger, and subject to the provisions in Clause 6. This means, for instance, that whereas for all other purposes of tax, or of reclaiming tax, as I understand it, war pensions are disregarded as being part of income, that does not apply to this Bill. You will not get your rebate if a war pension puts your income just over the limit, and so we are asking the borough treasurers to apply a completely new system of assessing income, one never tried anywhere else, and the Government ae telling them to do it in a rough and ready way and without trying to go into any fine distinctions or technicalities.
If anything goes wrong, we have been told the remedy by the Parliamentary Secretary. Speaking at the sixth meeting of the Standing Committee on February 10 (at that time they were talking about the question of how to assess income) he said:
"…it is difficult to know where to draw the line…If we find that the provisions of the Bill are still hitting people with low incomes, the best way of overcoming this would be by the general adjustment of the income limit rather than by picking out certain sources of income and eliminating them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee D. col. 281; 10/2/66.]
Of course, there is power to change the limits set out in Clause 7, and rather than try to get this tax administered with any degree of accuracy the Government would prefer to do it merely by altering the limits in Clause 7. This seems a novel method of dealing with tax. The other thing which Mr. MacColl said on that same day is, I think, equally interesting. He said:
" …the best way of approaching this is not to regard it as a complicated exercise in relief,"
—although it is a very complicated exercise in relief—
" in which one has finely graded sources of income and is allowed so much in the varying amounts of different kinds, but one takes the broadest view of what is the income coming into the home and by adjusting the minimum income, if necessary, one makes the system more flexible."—(col. 291.)
790
My Lords, that is this Government's method of taxation. Therefore, in a very lukewarm way I commend this Bill to your Lordships; not because I dislike the principles—on the contrary, I think they are admirable—but because I think that this has been a rushed job. Perhaps urgency required it, but I should have thought that it could have been rather better worked out than it has been. So far as your Lordships are concerned it has, of course, turned into a very rushed job indeed. From this side we will help it on its way as best we can. As I said, I do not think that there is much point in trying to improve it any more. Let us accept it as the rough and ready—very rough and ready—measure that the Minister himself described it to be.
3.50 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, during the last twenty years there has been a steady flow of Bills dealing with various aspects of our rating system. Most of them have been complicated. Some have been intended to achieve greater uniformity of treatment of ratepayers. But, on the whole, they have led to greater complexity and the anomalies have increased rather than diminished. Every Bill has brought new problems in its train. I remember some years ago, when the burden of rates fell particularly harshly on shop-keepers, that there were a great many protests—I think most of them justified—and eventually there was some alteration in the law. More recently, as the result of revaluation, householders have been harshly affected, particularly in some parts of the country, and attempts have been made to alleviate the hardship. But throughout the whole period the overall rate burden has steadily increased. Householders with small incomes have suffered most severely. This was shown clearly in the report of the Allen Committee.
This Bill, like the Rating (Interim Relief) Act 1964, to which the noble Viscount has referred, is intended to meet that kind of situation, but, like the Act of 1964, it is only a palliative; it does not go to the root of the problem. Nevertheless, this Bill will provide some relief, and I want to see it on the Statute Book —the sooner, the better. I think that it provides some improvement on the Act of 1964. In that Act, there was no definition of hardship and local authorities were left to decide as best they could how

791
to grant relief. Therefore, the benefits varied from one local authority to another. I remember forecasting this when that Bill was going through Parliament. It became clear that some attempt had to be made to provide a definition. So we have this Bill which, in the Minister's own words in another place, provides some "rough and ready justice"—but it is no more than rough and ready justice.
As your Lordships are aware, there are two objectives in the Bill. One is to grant ratepayers the right to pay their rates by instalments, and the second is to grant relief to those with small incomes. With regard to payment by instalments, I have one or two questions. It is still not clear to me what will happen where a voluntary system is already in operation. This is a point to which the noble Viscount has already referred. The Explanatory Memorandum,in dealing with Clause 1, states that the Bill (I am not reading the whole passage)
" confers on rateable occupiers … the right to opt to pay their rates by monthly instalments…unless they already in effect pay rates by instalments as part of their rents."
I assume that that has nothing to do with voluntary schemes for the payment of rates by instalments operated by certain local authorities, and that Clause 1 does not in any way deal with these schemes. I think that it would be helpful to know what exactly will happen in those local authority areas where there already are voluntary schemes. Will the ratepayers have to go through the procedures laid down in this Bill? Will the voluntary schemes be scrapped altogether? Or what is going to happen? There will be a good deal of work thrown on local authorities. Will the whole of the administrative cost be borne by them? I gather that the local authorities will have to bear that burden.
Thirdly, the Bill grants ratepayers the option to pay by instalment as of right. What about those who pay promptly? Clause 4 provides that local authorities may introduce a scheme for allowing a discount to those who pay promptly. But that is permissive. So far as payment by instalments—that is, deferred payments—is concerned, the provision is mandatory, but so far as a discount to those who pay promptly is concerned, the provision is not mandatory, as I
792
understand it. It is left to the local authorities to act as they wish. Should there not be the same provision for prompt payment as there is in regard to payment by instalments? I would be obliged if the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would deal with that point. If necessary, there would still be time to table an Amendment to-morrow.
Turning to rebates—that is to say, the granting of relief—I think that it is necessary to attempt some definition. Again, the burden of work will fall on the local authorities, and I should be interested to know what discussions have taken place with the representatives of the local authorities as to their ability to deal with this situation and how great a burden will fall on the staffs of local authorities. I think that it is important to point out that most of those who will benefit from this rate relief are not at present paying income tax. Therefore, they cannot turn up income tax returns for information, and the local authorities will not be able to refer to the Inland Revenue for confirmation where an application is made.
Like many of these Bills, this Bill introduces anomalies. As I understand it—and no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—a person entitled to assistance from the National Assistance Board will be able to choose between asking for help from the N.A.B. and receiving this rebate. It may be that the ratepayer will not wish to go to the N.A.B. and will prefer rate relief under this new Bill. But in the case of the N.A.B., the whole cost is borne by the Exchequer and in the case of relief under the Bill 25 per cent. is borne by the local authority. Therefore, the cost to the local authorities will depend on the choice made by ratepayers. That seems to me a little difficult to justify in principle.
These are some of the criticisms—I hope, constructive criticisms—which could be made of the Bill. I have two questions of immediate practical importance. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said that this Bill will come into effect on April 1. Is there going to be time to get this working by April 1? Is it possible for the ratepayers to know what their rights are and what they should do by the time they receive their rate demands which will be coming out in a few weeks time?—and I fear there are a

793
good many ratepayers in this country who will find the new demands rather a shock.
That leads to the other important practical question: will those whom this is intended to benefit understand the Bill and be made aware of their rights? One can imagine some old lady with a very modest income, perhaps living in a house where the rate assessment is rather high, asking for advice. It would be perfectly correct to tell her that it all depends on her reckonable income and reckonable rates; and the reckonable income, as set out in Clause 7, is the income in the relevant assessment period. But the kind of persons to whom this Bill, when it becomes an Act, is going to apply are not those who are conversant with expressions such as "the relevant assessment period". They probably do not pay income tax; they are not even aware of an assessment period for income tax purposes. They will have no information at hand to which they can turn; and it is most unlikely that they will employ an accountant. Nor will the local authority have information easily available with which to check the applications that are made. Therefore, this is not going to be a simple matter. Even when one has explained to the old lady—
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE: Or old gentleman.
LORD WADE:—or old gentleman, as my noble friend says, even when one has overcome that difficulty of the reckonable income there remains the problem of the reckonable rates, as set out in the Bill. One can imagine the confusion of this old lady or old gentleman, as the case may be, if he or she is referred to Clause 6 of the Bill. I will not trouble your Lordships with a long quotation, but I think if I read a short passage it will show how confusing it can be. This is how Clause 6 commences:
" In the case of a rebate application by such a person in respect of such a hereditament as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 5(3) of this Act, the applicant's reckonable rates shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be—

(a) the amount of the rates chargeable on that person in respect of that hereditament for the rebate period to which the application relates, less

(b)the proportion of that amount which, by virtue of subsection (3) and apart from subsection (4) of this section, is or would be the reckonable rates in relation to that
794
rebate period of any person or persons entitled to apply for a rebate in respect of any part of that hereditament by virtue of paragraph (c) of the said section 5(3)."

I hope that the old lady or old gentleman will understand.
The plea that I am making is that the benefits of this Bill should be made known in as clear and simple language as possible. Publicity about the Bill alone will not be enough. There will be a spate of publicity during the coming weeks about what the Government have done and what the Government have not done, and it may well reach saturation point. A number of Bills are reaching the Statute Book, and we have had recently a considerable number of White Papers. I understand that Mr. Grimond has suggested that the Government have perhaps decided to have a General Election because they have run out of paper. Be that as it may, with regard to this Bill I would plead for some small booklet in clear and simple language, which people can understand. It may be that this has already been decided upon, and, if so, I shall be delighted to hear it. I should like to know whose responsibility this will be. Will it be the responsibility of the Ministry or of the local authorities? But whosesoever the responsibility may be, I hope that it will be done. I wish these people to benefit from the Bill. It is a complicated Bill, and not entirely satisfactory, but it is at any rate, a temporary stop-gap measure. I hope it will help some of those people who are really worried about their rates. Therefore, subject to the reservations I have made, I support the Bill.
4.5 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first I must declare a small interest, in that I am Vice-President of the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations. This is not a financial interest, and I have declared it before in your Lorships' House when I have spoken on rating Bills. I am not professionally connected with any profession akin to rating, so I do not speak with any direct knowledge of this subject. In giving this Bill a very tepid welcome, I must say that it falls far short of the promises which the Party opposite made in October, 1964, as to what they would do about rating and ratepayers. A great deal of criticism was made of the Rating (Interim Relief) Act, which

795
was admittedly a small measure; but this Bill seems to achieve very little.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome Clause 1. But one wonders just how much ratepayers who pay normally will gather from the provisions of the Bill. There are a few local authorities which have even managed to make a reduction of current rates; and the Leatherhead Urban District Council, where I live, is one of them. But these are very much in the minority, and, particularly with the high cost of education, this is becoming more and more difficult. The decision to impose 25 per cent. of the cost of the rebates on other ratepayers who do not benefit from this Bill rather goes against the pledge of the Government to reduce the overall burden of rates. Then there will be a substantial increase of staff in the treasurers' departments of local authorities to implement the provisions of this Bill. Surely, the Central Government, and not the ratepayers, should bear these costs. It seems to me that any benefits which this Bill confers will he swallowed up in the administrative costs which will result from the terms provided by this Bill.
I join with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in protesting against the shortage of time we have to discuss this Bill. I know that in another place they had a fairly long Committee stage, but there are still a number of points which were not covered. I know that there are valid reasons why this situation has occurred, but it seems to me to go very much against the grain of the promises which the Government made before they came to power. I hope that the electorate will bear this in mind. In the circumstances, there seems little else which I can say, except to give a welcome to the Bill, so far as it goes. But it does little to implement the recommendations of the Allen Committee which we on these Benches set up and which did much hard work. It is only to be hoped that very shortly a far more detailed provision will be worked out which will benefit all ratepayers.
4.10 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I think I am the next to speak, although my noble friend Lord Peddie's name appears on the list before mine; appar-
796
ently he is not here. I must in the first place declare an interest, in that I am a ratepayer and, like most ratepayers, I think my rates are higher than they ought to be. Before I go more deeply into that, I should like to say a word about the views which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has put before the House. It seemed to me that all through his speech he was willing to wound, but afraid to strike. The criticisms he made were of a detailed, rather pettifogging, kind, and he seemed hesitant to give credit to the Government for this bold measure of social reform which will put £29 million into the pockets of the most deserving class of the population.
He made some little play with the suggestion that the attitude of my right honourable friend the Minister to local government financial reform was schizophrenic. I am afraid I cannot say that about his Party. Their policy with regard to rating reform has been single-minded all the way through—No, No, No, every time they were asked to make any improvement. Then he criticised the Minister for not making war pensions one of the disregards. I seem to remember that time after time, when Budgets have been under discussion, Conservative Governments have been asked to disregard war pensions for the purpose of income tax, and time after time the answer was, No, it cannot, or ought not to, be done.
The noble Viscount said that the measure was a rough one. Well, I am quite sure that the 2 million old people, many of them on retirement pensions, who will benefit from this scheme will not regard it as a rough one at all. He said, quite legitimately, that it is unbelievably complicated, and that it will be a heavy task for the county and borough treasurers to tackle. That is so, but after a fairly long local government experience, I have found that municipal treasurers are very able people, and I have no doubt at all that they will be able to cope with this, as they have with even more complicated measures in the past. I have sat over the shoulder of my own county treasurer and seen him trying to unravel the complications thrust upon him by the noble Viscount's London Government Act. If he could tackle that, I am sure he can tackle this.
The Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants have not been idle.

797
They have drawn up a number of pro formas which they have distributed to treasurers throughout the country. Those pro formas include simply worded leaflets for the general public: letters to send to them, giving further explanations; a draft form of assessment, which is quite simple to understand, and a ready reckoner showing every digit of income and what the appropriate rebate in rates would be. I have it here. It is very simple when reduced to the level at which the treasurer and his officers will have to make contact with the general ratepayer.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade—who usually leads me into temptation when he talks on rating matters, but he has not this day— said something of the same kind. He quoted a complicated clause, but then again the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants seem to have reduced this to quite a simple formula. They have prepared this leaflet which says, "If you pay rates for your home you may be entitled to claim a rebate". This leaflet answers some questions about the new arrangements. Question 2 is: How do I qualify? It tells them that if they are single or widows, they qualify if their income is £8 a week or less; and if they are married that they qualify if their income is £10 a week or less. The next question is: How much is the rebate? The amount of the rebate is explained. This document which has been drawn up and sent to all the treasurers in the country will make the task much more simple than if the treasurers merely had to try to interpret the very complicated clause which the noble Lord was good enough to read out to us.
I am one of those ratepayers who always pay their rates promptly and willingly. I realise that in return I get the benefit of a comprehensive range of public services which represent very good value for money. So I approach this debate with quite a clear conscience. While I am dealing with the subjective aspect of this matter, I think I must also clear my mind of the obvious fact that we are on the verge of a General Election. So I approach this matter quite objectively. Having approached it in that frame of mind, I find that the Bill is a good measure; one that will do an enormous amount of good to 2 million people, and I give it my wholehearted
798
support. It will be particularly welcome to the old-age pensioners and to the people who are on their kind of income. I know that this Government have already increased the incomes of old-age pensioners, and increased them very substantially indeed. The Government are now going to reduce the, outgoings of those old-age pensioners' households, with the result that millions of old people will find themselves with far more money in their pockets than they had eighteen months ago.
For twenty years I have been nagging for a comprehensive review of the whole local government financial system. I have felt that it contained injustices which ought to be abolished, and that probably the only way of doing that was to transfer some of the burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer; but that is outside the scope of what we have to consider today. I have urged this year after year when introducing the budgets of the Essex County Council—a budget that has risen from £11,000,000 just after the war, to £56,000,000 now. I have done it in a paper I presented to the annual conference of the Rating and Valuation Association; I have done it in the local government Press from time to time. In the early 1950's, I felt that the investigation which was conducted by the Oxford University Institute of Statistics disclosed a set of circumstances which was indefensible. They pointed out that a person with an old-age pension paid 10 per cent. of his income in rates, whereas a person with £900 or more paid less than 2 per cent. of his income in rates. Those figures have more recently been brought up to date in the Allen Report, but that still tells the same kind of story. It tells us that, with an income of under £312, you pay 8 per cent. of your income in rates, and that if your income is over £1,500 you pay less than 2 per cent. of your income in rates.
Noble Lords on the other side did not have to wait for the Allen Report before they could take action of the kind which the Government are taking to-day. They had these excellent Institute of Statistics figures before them in the early 1950's, and could have taken action on the basis of them had they wished to do so. Nothing was done. I welcome the fact that this present Government mean to do something.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that it was a waste of time to set up the Allen Committee?
LORD LEATHERLAND: No. But it was a waste of time for the previous Government not to do anything in carrying out their recommendations. We are doing it now. This Bill is an excellent first step, if viewed as a first step. It helps the people who are hit the hardest, and thereby fulfils the needs of that old cliché about getting our priorities right. But I do not suggest that that in itself is enough. This is just an emergency action to remedy an injustice which the Tories knew about, but which they allowed to continue. This plan to remit two-thirds of the rates over £7 10s. a year to the people who have incomes of under £ 10 a week is going to be a boon to two million people, and the plan to allow rates to be paid on a monthly basis is going to be a blessing to millions more, even though it is going to mean some extra work for the treasurers. However, I think the treasurers. with the assistance of their professional institute, will be able to take all that in their stride without too much trouble.
The complaint has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the ratepayer has to find a quarter of the sum of this rebate, roughly £7¼ million, out of the £29 million that will go into the pockets of these poor old people. That is so, and one might regret it perhaps, but from time to time when listening to discussions on local government we hear people on the other side—noble Lords in this House and representatives of their Party outside—bewailing the fact that greater Government grants might lead to control being taken out of the hands of the locally elected councils. So while I have some sympathy, and indeed I think I should be entitled to have more sympathy than they have, we have to remember that the Exchequer is going to pay 75 per cent. of the cost of this rebate, and I seem to recollect that when the Tories introduced the Rating (Interim Relief) Act, which devoted its benefits not only to the poor but to the rich as well, they paid only 66⅔ per cent. from the Exchequer and made the ratepayers pay the other 33⅓ per cent. If it was right and proper to make the ratepayers find that amount,
800
how can the present proposal to make them find only 25 per cent. be criticised? My Lords, we cannot have a sliding scale of virtue.
I have said that this Bill was a first step. If it was the only step I should regard it as being inadequate, although I should still be thankful for it, but we already have evidence that Mr. Crossman—you know, they call him "Dick, the ratepayers' friend"—has other reliefs in view. He is going to reduce all rates for all ratepayers all round by 5d. in the pound next year, by a further 5d. in the pound the following year, making 10d. in the pound, and by a further 5d. in the pound the year after that, making 1s. 3d. in the pound. He is also going to make the owners of empty houses pay rates on those premises, and it is about time that was done. So while the ratepayers are enjoying the benefits of all these bounties, Mr. Crossman is trying to devise a comprehensive scheme for the reform and reorganisation of local government finance as a whole. If he is going to take two or three years to do that, I would remind noble Lords opposite that they had 13 years and all they could do was to see rates go up, and then, to make matters worse, they put up the rents of the householders, and on top of that they multiplied the assessments by three. I am not suggesting that was not scientifically and mathematically a desirable thing to do, but it did have the effect of camouflaging the increases in recent years, so that when we have a council imposing a rate increase of 9d. it is really 2s. 3d. on the old assessment.
During the 13 years the annual amount of rates collected went up from £316 million to £993 million—more than trebled—and whilst I must admit that part of that came from the re-rating of industrial hereditaments, the fact remains that the householders had their rates drastically increased during those 13 years and the Party opposite did nothing to ameliorate the burden, apart from just tickling around the periphery of the subject and giving some very small subsidies to hard-hit areas, like Bournemouth, which had £95,000 of the taxpayers' money, Torquay, which had £32,500, Worthing, which had £80,000, and the City Corporation of London, with its bread-lines, that got a dole from the

801
Exchequer towards its rates. The Conservative Government did nothing, while they were doing that, to tackle the underlying injustice and unfairness of the whole rating system. For 13 years they allowed these basic injustices to multiply, and although an injustice was bearable, perhaps, with rates at 6s. in the pound, as they went up to 8s., 9s., 10s., 11s., 12s., and so on in the pound, that burden was multiplied and became more intolerable. This was at a time when the country was not faced with a crisis, when it had the money to give help to these people. In fact, "We never had it so good" and successive Chancellors of the Exchequer were busy reducing the rates of surtax.
Noble Lords opposite had many opportunities to help the ratepayers if they had wished to do so, but the fact was that the flesh was unwilling and the spirit was weak. Back in 1957 I remember that my honourable friends in another place asked for a comprehensive inquiry into the whole local government financial system. The answer was that there was nothing the Government could do. In 1960 we suggested a further inquiry to reduce the burden on the ratepayers, and the Minister then said:
" I can see no case for a fresh inquiry into the financial relationships between central and local Government ",
and a little later in that same year, when the Rating and Valuation Bill was before another place, a Labour Amendment was moved, calling for a comprehensive inquiry. The Conservatives defeated it, and the Liberals proudly marched into the Conservative Lobby to help defeat it.
In 1962, at the time of revaluation, we again demanded an inquiry to get to the root of this rating injustice. The Parliamentary Secretary then said, on behalf of the Conservatives:
" We must face up to the fact that promises of further inquiries are likely to hold out wholly false hopes of producing anything either new or more satisfactory than the system we have at present."
Of course nobody then expected the Tories to hold out anything savouring of false hopes—there was not an Election in that year. Then we moved on to January, 1963. The Conservative Central Office put out a statement to this effect:
"It is surely only sensible to wait and see how this revaluation works out before con-
802
sidering an inquiry into the whole rating system."
Then later that same year Sir Keith Joseph said:
"For the Government to set up an inquiry may unfairly raise hopes of some positive result. I do not think there is any prospect of any new solution being produced "
If that inquiry had been set on foot in 1960, even if not in 1957, when we first asked for it, all the facts would have been available now on which to base our reforms, and Lord Wade's site rating proposals might very well have been considered along with the rest. Of course, in September, 1964, the Election was coming round and they altered their tune. After all those years in darkness they began to see the light, and in their Manifesto they said:
"We recognise that a reform of the rates is required ".
It was rather peculiar that they had not recognised it at any time before during those 13 years when they had a chance, not merely of thinking about it and printing it in manifestos but actually of introducing legislation and performing the job. After the Election, when sides changed, they got more bold and more enterprising. They knew now, they told us, just how to lift this burden from the ratepayers. It was all very simple. That was after they had been shirking doing anything for 13 years themselves.
What they said in that policy statement Putting Britain Right Ahead, was
"Part of the burden of rates should be transferred to the Exchequer and hardship arising from rates relieved by a system which would take account of the problems of people with low incomes, particularly old people."
They knew of a system after all. They knew of that system for thirteen years when they were in office, but did they take action to put it into operation? Of course they did not. It was only after we came into office that they told us of the system, when we had been landed with the responsibility of bringing in this beneficent measure to-day. The only thing they could say before was that to have talks about the radical alteration of the rating system was only raising false hopes in the minds of the ratepayers. It reminds me of what the old sergeant major use to say: "Don't do as I do; do as I say". If it were not for the fact that a General Election is in the offing, I might be inclined to say,
"How could anyone trust a Party which acts like that? "
Finally, I think this is a good Bill. I think it takes the first step along the proper road. I know it is to be followed by even more far-reaching measures leading ultimately to radical and complete reorganisation of local government finance. I welcome it for its own intrinsic worth and for the reason that it will lead to great benefits for the most deserving group of ratepayers.
LORD MESTON: The noble Lord mentioned the figure of £7 10s. Would it be £3 15s.?
LORD LEATHERLAND: Part of this mathematical exercise is conducted on a six-monthly basis. It is therefore £3 15s. for six months, and £7 10s. for the year.
4.33 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am glad that this Bill has had a general welcome in principle. I am not altogether surprised that speakers on the opposite Benches diligently sought to find fault with it—diligently, rather than successfully. Of course it is complicated, and we all felt extremely sorry for Lord Wade's old lady friend who could not understand Clause 6. But we do not really expect her to. If one tried to get legislation of this kind into a form which dear old ladies, who one hopes will benefit, could readily understand, I doubt whether it could be done without causing a great deal of trouble through anomalies in difficult cases.
The trouble about rating legislation is that rates are paid in so many ways, some directly, some indirectly, as in the case of the charities which get a specific mention here; sometimes in respect of part of a heraditament, and so on and so forth; or sharing a house—there are all kinds of complications. I agree that it makes one almost ill to read some of the stuff that emerges about this, but I always feel like Bruce Bairnsfathers' man with this: "If you know a better 'ole, go to it". It is very difficult to re-draft it into simple English.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I was not advocating that legislation should be written primarily as reading matter for old ladies. I was pleading that something should be done later to explain it to the old ladies.
LORD MITCHISON: Something has been done already, and we are going to do some more. There has been one circular about this Bill. But again it is still difficult to explain only by way of circulars. What we have to do is to rely on the local authorities to do this, just as, in practice, they have to do over quite a number of other things in seeing that people get their rights. They are elected bodies and they do, in fact, act in this way. There has been full discussion with the Municipal Treasurers' Institute, as I think appeared from the speech of my noble friend Lord Leatherland. That is the right way to get this matter over. It would perhaps be almost frivolous to say that it is almost as difficult as expecting people to understand some Finance Bills. One has to rely on whatever means are open, including circulars, such as the one already issued and the one that is going to be issued; and particularly on the officers and members of local authorities, to see that people get their rights. I think this system works, too.
To deal with another point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, Clause 4 is a discretionary clause. What appears to have happened below is that there was considerable pressure from the Opposition for an even more discretionary clause. I have not traced the form in which it was, but (if I may put it this way) this was accepted by all the Parties as the right balance. It is very much a balance on the discretionary side between the alternatives; a very tight mandate or a very wide discretion. It is not altogether unlimited. Perhaps the noble Lord will excuse my going further into it if I assure him that this matter was carefully considered, and I think, if I may venture a judgment of my own on it, that it is a matter that may properly be left to local authorities. The effect of this concession will vary so much in different places, and it is up to them to see whether it is worth their while to make these allowances. That is what it comes to. I quite see the point, but I think this is the right solution.
I turn to one other matter, and this is a broad and general one. This is not really a taxing Bill. You can call it that—people often use language loosely—but in fact it is a Bill to alleviate or limit the regressive character of rates. I take

805
it that when rates, or anything else, are said to have a regressive character, what one means is that poor people who are carrying their burden are carrying more than their share, and it follows that better-off people are carrying less than their share—because we are not discussing the total amount of rate burden but its distribution between different groups of people. This is a problem which occupied a great deal of the time, and a great deal of the Report, of the Allen Committee; and broadly speaking, their conclusion was that on occupiers with incomes of under £10 a week the burden was very heavy. It was on that conclusion, and on the facts detailed in support of it by the Allen Committee, that we founded the limiting provisions of income to which I referred as part of reckonable income under the Bill. We have paid a great deal of attention to the Allen Report over this matter. And I repeat, this is not a Bill to increase or reduce the total rate burden; it is a Bill to shift some of the rate burden from the quarter which is suffering most to those who can better afford to carry it. That is a measure of social justice—a measure of social justice between ratepayers. It is no more than that at present.
Of course it is not a wide-scale rating reform. I hope that I made it clear that this Bill was not put forward as anything of the sort. I read what was said in the relevant White Paper about this matter. What is now entailed is, first of all, a very thorough examination of the whole relationship between central and local finance; and l hope it is no secret to say that this has been going on for some time already. It is a very complicated and difficult problem, and it has led also to the setting up of a Royal Commission to consider local government as a whole, which is an equally broad, perhaps even broader, question. It is, of course, good electioneering (I hope the noble Lord will not think I am being frivolous) to say to the Government, "You have not carried out your promises," but there are better places to say it than on this Bill.
That is for two reasons. The first is that his own Party acted far worse in the 1964 Act. When it came into force it was really not a good or sufficient piece of legislation. Secondly, what has hap-
806
pened is very clear. As we have gone along we have found this problem one that needed deeper and more thorough examination than we or anybody else thought necessary when we first looked at it. Your Lordships had another good case the other day. You will remember the West Midlands Order that came before your Lordships, and what it was all about. Remember the procedure that it had to go through. Remember the fact that it was divided against by this House. I hope no one is going to tell me that local government and its machinery does not need a pretty thorough looking at. The same applies to financial relations, too.
Therefore, I welcome the fact that we are going further. I would not for the world be even faintly rude to the noble Lord for teasing me by saying, "You have not kept your promises." I think we are carrying them out. But I would not put forward this Bill as more than it really is, an attempt to shift a particular burden from one group of people to another. We have done quite well in helping the local authorities about this matter. After all, as my noble friend Lord Leatherland pointed out, we have done better than the Opposition did, I think, in matters of percentages. But, be that as it may, the Exchequer, which in these not too easy times is not easy to get any money from, is contributing £22 million out of £29 million. I do not think that the ratepayers who have to carry the extra £7 million are an oppressed group. I think they are doing very well out of it and I think we might consider that point of view in what is, I repeat, a measure to redress in part the regressive character of this rate burden.
There were one or two other questions asked of me, and I will look through what has been said in the course of the debate and try to answer them. I do not know whether there were any broad questions that any noble Lord would particularly like me to try to answer now, but we have a good deal of other business. This is a measure which represents a good deal of common agreement for what I believe is a good purpose. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I would say that the reference to the time taken by the 1963 Bill was not, I hope, too provocative, but it was, quite frankly, a hint that,

807
everything being as it is, we might see whether we could deal fairly shortly with the matter. Your Lordships have been kind to me, to the Government and to yourselves in taking this measure in that spirit. I do not know whether I am in order in thanking your Lordships for doing so, but I should like to do just that.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
4.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2:
Benefit under Insurance Act by way of earnings-related supplement
2.—
(3) Where a person has been entitled to earnings-related supplement in respect of an aggregate of one hundred and fifty-six days in (or in what, but for section 21(3)(b) of the Insurance Act, would Faye been) the same period of interruption of employment, he shall not be entitled thereto in respect of any further day in that period.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "earnings-related supplement" and insert "unemployment benefit". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first. Amendment standing in my name. If it is the will of the Committee, I would suggest that we take Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 along with it, they being inter-connected. The effect of these three Amendments would be, or is intended to be, and I think would be, that only earnings-related unemployment benefit would be limited to six months and earnings-related sickness benefit would be unlimited in time.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said in introducing the Bill on Second Reading:
" In the Government's view the provision of benefit on a long-term basis for people such as the chronically sick raises different issues, which are being considered as part of the review of social security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 273, col. 488, 28/2/66].
In winding-up, he gave two reasons for not covering long-term sickness, in column 516, and these were (if I may paraphrase) first of all, that long-term sickness is a form of premature retirement; and secondly, that it would not be fair to base benefit for long-term sickness on average earnings in the last complete income tax year, as is done in the case of this Bill. That is the base for earnings-related unemployment benefit and earnings-related sickness benefit.
As to the first of those points, that it is a form of premature retirement, while that may be so, it is not necessarily so. It seems to me that only is it so where incapacity is permanent and the invalid has to give up work forever. Then, in effect, he retires through ill-health, even if it is at an early age. As to the second reason, that it would not be fair to base benefit for long-term sickness on average earnings in the last complete income tax year, it might be unfair, but again it is not necessarily so. If it is unfair to take the last complete income tax year, there is nothing to prevent some other income tax year from being taken, unless, of course, the Government think that that would be too generous.
It seems to me that the arguments in favour of having some kind of long-term sickness benefit provision in this Bill are these. First of all, in the debate in another place on the Welfare State on February 23 last, Mr. Douglas Houghton said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 429] that the present Government aimed at producing a White Paper some time next year. With that time-table, legislation might be introduced in the Session 1967–68 which might cover long-term sickness. It could hardly be earlier. There would probably be a gap before the Statute came into operation, as there is under this Bill, and in the nature of things one would expect that to happen.
Moreover, the fact is that this Bill is more apt to cover long-term and short-term sickness benefit, because, as I pointed out on Second Reading, well

809
over half of the employees are covered to some extent already in the earlier periods of sickness. I do not know how many are covered in the long-term, but it must be relatively few, and I think quite few. Therefore, the need for some form of insurance against long-term sickness is greater than against short-term sickness. Of course it occurs much more rarely; but when it does, its effects upon the individual and upon the family who are affected are bound to be much more devastating. Even if the benefits of the long-term sick, under the arrangements which apparently the Government are now studying, were now related to what they would have received when they reached retirement age after their full span of work, and if that were to be based on their earnings over some period, the very earliest anyone could benefit, so far as I could see, would be three years after the benefits payable under this Bill come into operation. So there is going to be a three-year delay before they can benefit—and it may be very much longer.
If there is one thing that most of us in public affairs learn, it is never to refrain from doing something worth while when one gets the chance to do it, because chances occur rarely, and anyone who has been a Minister knows that legislative chances come very rarely. When one gets the chance to do it, one should never refrain from doing something worth while simply on the ground that it may be possible to do something a little better later. This Bill gives the opportunity to do something worth while for some who will become sick after next autumn and who remain sick for more than six months. Not all long-term sick are incurable; and by long-term sick "we are talking about people who are sick for more than six months. It is only the incurables who can be compared with those people who retire, and even for them flat-rate benefit, plus a third of earnings up to £30, is scarcely over-generous. The rest have a period of interruption of employment which may be a period of six months, nine months, one year or two years; illness may last for much more than six months. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask why should the earnings-related benefit end after six months. Flat-rate unemployment benefit has always been limited in time, and one would expect to find earnings-
810
related unemployment benefit also limited in time. But flat-rate sickness benefit has no limit in time. It is both short-term and long-term. Therefore, one asks why should the new earnings-related sickness benefit have a limit.
As to the second point the noble Lord made, I agree that the previous income tax year might not in all cases be appropriate, but the Bill as it stands, as I understand it, makes provision for regulations to prescribe that the relevant income tax year should not always be the previous one. I also agree that my Amendment does nothing for those who are already permanently incapacitated, but this is a mutual insurance scheme to cover contributors from the start of the scheme. There is nothing to prevent long-term sickness from being one of the risks that contributions would cover under this Bill. One has to start somewhere in dealing with the long-term sick, and I believe we should be starting to cover long-term sickness now, when we have the chance to do so, rather than wait three years or more.
If any future earnings-related retirement scheme is to cover long-term sickness, it seems to me that it can be only on the basis of earnings. The alternative would be to cover it by something along the lines of the National Assistance provisions, even though the term "National Assistance" is changed. I admit that the cost is not covered in the calculation of contributions needed to finance the scheme, but the cost in the first year, I imagine, would be relatively small. Thereafter it would grow from year to year, as more and more long-term sick were carried under the scheme. But surely the scheme could meet this extra commitment. I see from the Government Actuary's report that a surplus of £2 million is anticipated in 1968–69, and of £4 million in 1969–70. If the Government accept this Amendment, it would be for them to add a suitable clause providing for regulations to be made to prescribe the details—details as to which income tax year is to be taken into account in line with the current cost of living and so on.
I submit that we are entitled to more explanation than we have so far had as to why the Government decided to restrict earnings-related sickness benefits to six months. Long-term sickness is one of the

811
most intractable of problems, as I know from my own experience; but here is an opportunity to deal with it on a clear, intelligible principle of contributory insurance. I submit that this opportunity ought not to be massed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, leave out (" earnings-related supplement ") and insert (" unemployment benefit ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
4.58 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: Subsection (3) of Clause 2 lays down the maximum period for which the new earnings-related supplement can be paid as 156 days in a period of interruption of employment. A period of interruption of employment comprises spells of both unemployment and sickness, and a new period starts only when there is a gap of more than 13 weeks without unemployment or sickness. The 156 days of supplement start to be counted after 12 waiting days. The effect of the three Amendments to the clause is, broadly, to apply the limit on duration of the supplement only to cases where it is paid with unemployment benefit. As a result, supplement to sickness benefit would be paid without limit of time as long as the flat-rate benefit remained payable (and, except for people who have paid less than 156 employed or self-employed contributions, the flat-rate sickness benefit is paid as long as incapacity for work remains). The intention of the Amendment is presumably to allow supplement to continue to be paid after six months to the long-term sick. The noble Lord and I discussed this matter on Second Reading.
If this is the purpose, the proposed Amendment does not fully achieve it. For instance, the Amendment would certainly preclude payment of further supplement after a person had been entitled to 168 days of unemployment benefit in a period of interruption of employment; but, because such periods can include sickness as well as unemployment, this would mean that the person who fell chronically sick after 168 or more days on unemployment benefit would not get the supplement, for his period of sickness.
The basic objection to the Amendment is that it is seeking to use the Bill, which is designed and appropriate only for the early months of unemployment and sick-
812
ness, to try to solve the difficult and different problem of the long-term sick. The form of the Bill simply is not suited to this. The Government recognise the special problems of the long-term sick and are studying them very closely in their general review of the social security scheme. They hope, as further stages of the review are completed, to produce proposals which will provide a proper solution to the question.
The first criticism of the Amendment is that only some of the long-term sick would benefit. It would be very difficult, and in many cases impossible, to calculate a supplement for the existing long-term sick because many of them have not had earnings for years. The supplement would also have to stop under the Amendment when retirement pension came into payment at or after minimum pension age, even though the chronic sickness continued and perhaps became more severe in old age. This is very important because most people who fall chronically sick do so in their fifties and early sixties. It would therefore be very difficult suddenly to stop payment of the supplement. But if supplement continued to be paid to people who were chronically sick at pension age this would create a privileged group of retirement pensioners and would lead to pressure for similar provision for those who become chronically sick after pension age. All this illustrates the inevitably close links between the long-term sick and the old; and, as I said earlier, and as the noble Lord repeated, chronic sickness is in effect a form of premature retirement. I agree that chronic sickness can stop, but we feel here that what the noble Lord really wants to do is to go a great deal further than the Bill is drawn to do. To plan a solution for the one group of chronic sick, which takes no account of the other, would inevitably lead to intolerable anomalies.
The second criticism of the Amendment is that it is not feasible to use, for a long-term benefit for chronic sickness, the machinery in the Bill, which is designed for short-term supplements. The Bill is intended to cushion the initial drop from earnings to flat-rate benefit which occurs during unemployment and sickness. It is therefore reasonable that supplement for up to six months should depend on earnings in the latest income

813
tax year. But long-term sickness often lasts for many years, so that a man's standard of life over a long period might, under the Amendment, depend on what his earnings happened to be shortly before he fell sick. Sometimes they might be disproportionately high, and in other cases disproportionately low, perhaps because the onset of the illness had reduced the man's earning power. To use the Bill's machinery in this way would create anomalies and grave dissatisfaction. It would probably he necessary to take a much longer reference period for earnings than a year, and here, again, there may be a link with earnings-related retirement pensions and widows' benefits which are also being carefully considered by the Government in the review.
Perhaps the noble Lord and the Committee would like to know something about the cost. The noble Lord gave an estimate which I think he will see is very far from the Government's estimate. I think the noble Lord suggested a surplus of about £ 2 million in 1968 and £4 million after that, from which these benefits could be paid.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I merely pointed out that there was that surplus.
LORD BOWLES: It was only relevant to point that out, if the noble Lord expected the benefits which he wanted improved by this Amendment to be paid out of that surplus. Let us see what the brief says. It is estimated that there are about 350,000 people at any one time who are receiving sickness benefit and have been sick for more than six months. The cost of the Amendment in the early years would depend on how far it was possible to provide and calculate earnings-related supplement for people already sick, who may have had their last earnings many years ago.
The Government Actuary estimates that the ultimate cost would be of the order of £50 million a year, on the basis that supplement ceased to be paid when retirement pension came into payment, as would be the case under the Amendment. Any proposal to extend the supplement to retirement pensioners who were sick would acid very greatly indeed to this cost, since there are about 6 million retirement pensioners, of whom a large but unknown proportion will he chronically sick. In view of those
814
reasons, I am sorry to say that the Government cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I quite understand, of course, that the form of the Bill is not suitable for this, because the Government did not intend to introduce this long-term sickness benefit and, therefore, did not frame the Bill in a suitable form. What I was arguing was that it would have been quite possible to contain a benefit for long-term sickness within the framework of a similar Bill, had the Government intended to do so from the start, which I still think they should have done.
The noble Lord was also good enough to give some figures of what the cost would be, but he did not cost my proposal. He costed the proposal that I think he had in mind, which was the application of this proposal to all longterm sick from the start, from next autumn. Of course, that is not the proposal here. The proposal is that you have a new insurance scheme, and it is only the people who start to contribute to that scheme—that is, the earnings-related benefit—who would be included in the scheme. Therefore, the cost in the first year will not cover anything like 350,000 people and would not increase at anything like the rate suggested. I think the figure of 350.000 is almost certainly the total figure of long-term sick at any given point of time. I do not doubt that in the end the figure might increase towards that point, although that figure no doubt also includes some people who have never earned at all and so would not be covered in this sort of scheme.
It is difficult to argue something which, I admit, cannot easily be contained in the framework of the Bill as it stands. But what one really wanted was that it should be contained in the Bill at the start. I can see that it is very difficult to do this, but I still maintain that this opportunity has been missed. I think one can over-stress the arguments as to what happens after retirement. This is a question which, of course, will have to be examined by any Government in the course of deciding what has to be done about the retirement pension. But so far as the unemployment and sickness benefit on the

815
short-term basis is concerned, it is related to interruption of work, and I was arguing only on the basis of interruption of work up to the time when work ceases on retirement. Therefore, that was the basis that had to be taken for consideration of this Amendment.
I quite see that it is not possible to press this Amendment any further. I felt that it was right to get a fuller explanation of the reasons why the Government had decided not to cover this in the Bill. The noble Lord has been good enough to give that explanation and, while I do not agree with it entirely and do not accept it without reservations, I am grateful to him for having given it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is one aspect of sickness benefit which I thought, with respect, was left in a rather unsatisfactory state after the Second Reading debate. I have already referred to the fact that over half of the employees are already covered in some measure by employers' sick pay schemes. I believe that the numbers in 1962 were 13 ½ million out of 22 ½ million employed. About two-thirds of the 13 ½ million are covered by schemes under which employers pay full normal wages or salaries, but deduct whatever National Insurance payment is made. I understand that about one-eighth of the numbers covered received full pay on top of National Insurance, sometimes a fixed payment, and about one-fifth of male employees covered receive flat-rate payments on top of National Insurance. Some of the flat-rate payments are substantial. The effect is that many people, when sick, get more than their take-home pay when they are working; and, of course, that means that if they are injured they get very much more, although there is no doubt an element of compensation involved in the industrial injuries benefit.
I think it is right to recognise that this Bill will still farther add to such disparity as exists. I do not think that this is something which can be ignored or passed over rather lightly, in the way
816
the Minister did in another place in the words which the noble Lord himself quoted on Second Reading, in column 516. The noble Lord finished up with this quotation:
" No doubt employers will want to discuss with their employees what they will do as a result of the provisions of this Bill and this seems to me to be the right way of going about the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 273 (No. 42); 28/2/66.]
That was a quotation from what the Minister had said in another place, in column 1351. Perhaps it is the right way to go about it provided that employees respond and are willing to negotiate.
I remember drawing attention to a similar state of affairs arising out of the Redundancy Payments Bill. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, took a rather more robust attitude than the Minister has on this occasion. He said this:
" … it is up to the trade unions, whether in the electricity, gas, coal or railways industries, which have existing redundancy agreements to re-negotiate in the light of the Redundancy Payments Bill and of its effect on their schemes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 269, col. 232; 3/8/65.]
Everyone is pleased when satisfactory arrangements are made by employers for their employers in sickness or when they become redundant, whether on the employers' own initiative or as a result of negotiations with employees. But to go on adding National Insurance benefits on top, to the point where the total received for not working is considerably higher—and I stress the word" considerably ", as it is applicable in some cases—than the take-home pay, surely exceeds the bounds of common sense and equity. It seems to me to be the duty of the Government to give a much stronger lead on this matter than they have so far given.
LORD BOWLES: In the first place, I made clear—at least, I thought I did—during the Second Reading debate the Government's position about this. Perhaps I might just refer to it again. The Government position on this is quite clearly stated in my reply to the debate on Second Reading, in column 516 of Hansard, when I also quoted similar statements, as the noble Lord has said, made by my right honourable friend the

817
Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in another place. Perhaps I may restate the position. It is the Government's view that it is open to employers with sick pay schemes, where the new supplements are not automatically taken into account, to discuss with their employees how far the particular scheme should be amended to take account of this Bill. This will apply whether it is a private employer, a nationalised industry, or indeed the State itself in its role as employer, and whatever the type of sick pay scheme should be. I take it on my own responsibility to echo what my noble friend Lord Lindgren said: I think it is probably up to the trade unions in these industries, in this kind of situation, to negotiate for their employees. It is a question for further negotiations.
The last point the noble Lord made was that it would be rather unfortunate if people took home more if they were not working than if they were working.I agree with that. Without being able to put my hand right on it, in my Second Reading speech I know I referred to the fact that the 85 per cent. provision was introduced so as, on the whole, to prevent people from taking home more when they were not working than when they were working. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am sure this is good sense; but when he is talking about the 85 per cent. provision, of course, this relates only to flat-rate benefit plus the earnings-related benefit. It does not take account of any payments that may be made from private schemes or by employers under their own schemes.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES: That is quite right.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was not certain that the noble Lord's last point was right.
LORD INGLEWOOD: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell me what subsection (9) means? I know that legislation in this field is difficult, because I was involved in it at the time of the first graduated pensions Bill, which noble Lords opposite opposed so violently, but subsection (9) looks even more difficult to understand than anything we had in
818
that Bill and I really think we should ask for a simple explanation.
LORD BOWLES: Subsection (9) ensures that questions arising with respect to any person's reckonable earnings for the purpose of earnings-related supplement under Clause 2, or widow's supplementary allowance under Clause 4, shall, like contribution questions, be determined as though they were Minister's questions under Section 64(1) of the National Insurance Act. These questions will thus be for decision by the Minister, with a right of appeal on a point of law to the High Court (or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session), and with provision for review by the Minister if new facts come to light or if she is satisfied that her decision was given in ignorance of, or based on a mistake as to, a material fact. The last lines of the subsection ensure that these new Minister's questions attract the provisions of the National Insurance Act on existing Minister's questions under Section 73, subsections (1) and (2), which provide regulation-making powers, and Section 97, which provides that certain decisions shall be conclusive for purposes of proceedings under the National Insurance Act. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendments as to unemployment benefit and sickness benefit
3.—(1) For the purpose of earnings-related supplement under section 2 of this Act and, as from the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, for the purpose of any provision of the Insurance Act relating to unemployment benefit or to a day or period of interruption of employment. section 20 of that Act shall have effect as if—

(a) for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there were substituted the following:—

"(b) where an employed contributor's employment has not been terminated but a person's employment therein has been suspended by the employer, a day shall not be treated in relation to that person as a clay of unemployment unless it is the seventh or a later day in a continuous period of days on which that suspension has lasted, there being disregarded for the purpose of determining the first six days of that period, but for no other purpose—

(i) Sunday or such other day in each week as may have been prescribed under paragraph (e) of this subsection; and

(ii) any day of recognised or customary holiday in connection with that employment; and

819

(iii) such other day or days, if any. as may be prescribed";

5.18 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The effect of this Amendment, as I understand it. will be to exclude earnings-related supplement from this clause, which deals with the six days of suspended employment. It is not apparent to me how suspended employment can affect the operation of earnings-related unemployment benefit at all, even in the three-year period before this subsection is to apply to flat-rate unemployment benefit. It is not apparent how it affects them, because the six days of suspended employment would not in any case be taken into account for earnings-related unemployment benefit, which starts only after twelve days—that is, after two weeks. I do not know if the noble Lord could kindly explain to me why it is that these words are necessary at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 28.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BOWLES: I was rather amused when the noble Lord, in moving his Amendment, said "as I understand it". I find it equally difficult to understand his Amendment. Clause 3(1) provides that unemployment benefit should not be paid during the first six days of any temporary suspension of work to a man whose employment has not been terminated. The aim is that short-time working in the first week of temporary lay-off should be covered by guaranteed wage agreements, but that sufficient time must be given for these to be negotiated and for the Government to ensure that the needs of employees during these six days are being properly looked after. The clause thus provides for an interim period of three years during which flat-rate unemployment benefit will still be available as at. present. As the noble Lord has explained, or as I think he did, the effect of his Amendment would be that during the interim period the earnings-related supplement as well as the flat-rate benefit will be made available during the first six days of suspension.
In my speech on Second Reading I explained that there are a number of
820
reasons for Clause 3(1). In order to pay unemployment benefit during short-time working and short spells of lay-off, it is at present necessary to calculate benefit rights according to a very complicated set of rules which have in practice led to serious difficulties and anomalies. When a firm resorts to short-term working it often happens that benefit claims by thousands of employees have to be handled all at once by the employment exchange who have to establish the days off actually lost by each employee. These may vary from worker to worker according to his individual record of working, his pattern of shifts, overtime and so on. It is often necessary to conduct detailed and costly investigations into individual records and to make exhaustive inquiries of the employers as well as of the claimants themselves. Employment exchange staff may have to be taken off other more constructive work simply to cope with handling claims for small amounts of unemployment benefit by people whose attendance at the employment exchange has little or nothing to do with looking for a job.
If earnings-related supplement were to be payable for days of suspension of work during short-time working, the work falling on employment exchanges would be very greatly increased at these peaks of pressure. For every suspended person who happened to have had a period off work or of incapacity in the previous 13 weeks—in which case waiting days would not have to be served—it would be necessary to make a further calculation of benefit to take account of the earnings-related supplement to which the claimant was entitled. The amount of effort needed to cope with the paper work would be out of all proportion to the amount of benefit involved.
The anomalies and difficulties that exist and will remain for the time being under the flat-rate scheme would be made much worse by any attempt to pay earnings-related supplements for such short spells. Indeed the Government's view is that payment of earnings-related supplement to workers on short time or during the first week of lay-off would be neither right in principle nor feasible in practice.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I find great difficulty in understanding this. I think

821
the answer must be surely a simple one; that if a man has already had a period of a fortnight's unemployment or sickness and then comes back to work and there is no work because employment is suspended, then in that period of suspended employment he would be entitled to earnings-related supplement. I do not know; but I think this must be so; otherwise I cannot see how earnings-related supplement could ever arise in relation to suspended days because of the fact that earnings-related supplement only starts after a fortnight's unemployment. I think that must be the reason; but in any case I am not going to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
LORD BOWLES: May I thank the noble Lord. After all, if he, as an ex-Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, finds difficulty, he will understand my position, having never been a Minister at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (I), to leave out "three years" and insert "eighteen months". The noble Lord said: We now come on to the second part which relates to unemployment benefit, the flat-rate benefit in particular—the days of interruption for fiat-rate unemployment benefit. The point of this Amendment is simply that three years seems to be a very long time to allow before the new rule comes into effect that the first six suspended days are not to apply as days of interruption of employment for unemployment benefit purposes. The noble Lord has said that it is to give both sides of industry time to negotiate on the provision to be made for short-time working and the first week of lay-off. This is in column 491 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for February 28 last. Surely it must be true that the longer the time you give, the less incentive there is to start negotiations. Surely in a case like this it would be better to set a shorter time, even if power were taken to extend it, if you have to extend it. To set a period of three years from the start seems a very long time. It is almost in decimal currency terms. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out (" three years ") and insert (" eighteen months").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BOWLES: The effect of this Amendment would be to shorten the interim period during which flat-rate unemployment benefit will be preserved for the first six days of suspension from one of three years after the Royal Assent to one of eighteen months. On the assumption that the earnings-related scheme is brought into operation in the autumn of this year, this would mean that Clause 3(1) would actually come into full effect less than a year after the start of the new scheme. We are hoping to bring this into operation in about seven or eight months.
The Government have given much thought to the question of the length of time that ought to be allowed for the negotiation of new or revised agreements to take account of the withdrawal of unemployment benefit rights during short time working and the first six days of temporary lay-off. It will be clear from my earlier remarks that the Government would like to bring the present unsatisfactory arrangements to an end as soon as possible. But employers and unions have made their existing dispositions on the basis of existing benefit rights, and they must be given a reasonable time to adjust themselves to the new situation. To withdraw existing benefit rights without adequate notice might cause hardship which the Government are anxious to avoid. It is well understood that in many industries it would take a considerable time to bring important and involved negotiations of this sort to fruition and into operation.
There is also the important point that during the interim period the Government will need to verify that the progress made towards the completion of new agreements is satisfactory, and to allow sufficient time for further steps to be taken if progress is not satisfactory. As I explained in my speech on Second Reading, we propose to review the progress of these negotiations halfway through the interim period and we do not think it would be realistic to make such an assessment less than eighteen months from now. Similarly, the possibility that it might be necessary to resort to legislation to make guaranteed wages compulsory means that we must allow a further eighteen months between the review of progress and the end of the interim period.

823
Accordingly, while we share the noble Lord's desire to bring this clause into full effect as soon as possible, it would, in our view, be unreasonable to expect satisfactory alternative arrangements to be brought to finality within eighteen months. The consequences of shortening the interim period as the noble Lord's Amendment proposes would, therefore, be to cause hardship and to prejudice the smooth introduction of a worthwhile improvement in the scheme.
It might be of interest to note that the financial effect o: bringing Clause 3(0 into full operation in eighteen months instead of three years after the Royal Assent would be an estimated saving to the National Insurance fund of £3½ million. The additional cost of paying earnings-related supplement for the first six days of suspension during the shorter transitional period proposed in the Amendment is estimated at £750,000. Thus the effect of the two Amendments taken together is estimated at £2,750,000. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information which he has given on this matter. I am sure we all agree that a reasonable time should be given for these negotiations, but what is a reasonable time is a question of judgment. From what I gather, the Government would have been prepared to have a shorter time than this, but it looks very much, from what the noble Lord has said about guaranteed wages, as if the trade union side has said:" We will do this only if there are guaranteed wages, and the Government must introduce a Bill to have guaranteed wages if the negotiations are not going right." That is why the Bill gives this long period of three years in order to provide time not only for the negotiations, which could obviously take place if there was the will for them to take place, within eighteen months—this seems to be the whole object of the exercise—but to see whether they have taken place after eighteen months and, if not, to allow further time to get the legislation through on guaranteed wages if that is not happening voluntarily. That is what it looks like, according to the interpretation of what the noble Lord has said. I do not know whether I am right.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES: I agree with the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.33 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (2)
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any person whose employment was interrupted at the time of the passage of this Act in respect of that period of interruption of employment ".
The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple point. The Amendment says that the reduction in the maximum period of unemployment benefit from 82 weeks to one year, as proposed in the Bill, shall not apply to those unemployed at the time when the Bill becomes law. That is to say, people who are unemployed at the time when the Bill comes into operation will continue to enjoy the benefit of the longer period that the rules will not he changed during this game, but only for the next game. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Drumalbyn).
LORD BOWLES: Subsection (2) of Clause 3 provides for rationalisation of the duration of flat-rate unemployment benefit. At present, unemployment benefit is paid for a standard period of 180 days plus up to 312" added days ", depending on contribution and benefit history. Accordingly, the duration can vary from 180 to 492 days, which means (as Sundays are excluded) from 7 months to 19 months. Under the subsection in the Bill this will he replaced by a straight maximum of 312 days flat-rate benefit (one year) in any period of interruption of employment. The Amendment adds a proviso which would exclude from the new rule people who remained in a period of interruption of employment which had been in operation "at the time of the passage of the Act". This presumably means at Royal Assent, but in practice would have to be the appointed day for Clause 3(2), which is expected to be a date this autumn.
The effect of the Amendment would be not only to retain the existing system

825
temporarily for some existing cases whose added days gave them more than the new 12 months' benefit, which is presumably the interim period behind the proposal, but also to retain the present system temporarily where a person is now entitled to less than the new 12 months in total. The Amendment would also mean that in a few cases the transitional arrangements would persist for many years. This is because a period of interruption covers sickness as well as unemployment, and is not broken unless there is a period of more than 13 weeks without either of these contingencies arising. If, therefore, a person was sick at the appointed day, remained sick, on and off, for years, and eventually claimed unemployment benefit, then under the Amendment, the old arrangement would apply to him, whether to his advantage or disadvantage. As indicated briefly in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the Bill, the Government accept that there should be some transitional arrangements to ease this rationalisation of unemployment benefit in the early days. These will be secured by regulations made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance under the transitional powers in Clause 14(5) of the Bill. The regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
It is proposed that, under the regulations, the scaling up of unemployment benefit from a minimum of 7 months to a standard period of 12 months will take immediate effect, so that any person who is entitled to unemployment benefit under the present conditions on or after the appointed day (regardless of whether or not his period of interruption of employment started before the appointed day) shall be entitled to the new 12-month maximum period. However, in scaling entitlement to flat-rate benefit down from a maximum of 19 to 12 months, it is intended that the regulations shall provide for a transitional period of 312 days (12 months) during which added days will continue to be payable. This will mean that anyone who at the appointed day is unemployed and already receiving added days will, if he continues to be unemployed, be eligible for the full quota of added days to which he is entitled under the present rule.
For example, a man who is entitled to 17 months' unemployment benefit under
826
the present provisions, and who has already been unemployed for 10 months at the start of the new scheme, would be able to get up to a further 7 months' unemployment benefit during the same period of interruption of employment. This transitional period will, of course, also be of advantage to people who have already received some unemployment benefit before the appointed day in a then current period of interruption of employment, but have not yet got on to added days. They, too, will be able to get any unemployment benefit over and above the 312-day duration to which they may be entitled before the expiry of the one-year transitional period.
These proposals by the Government are preferable to the proposed Amendment, in two ways. First they ensure that where the new provisions are to a person's advantage, they are put into immediate effect, even in existing cases. Secondly, they ensure that, while there is a transitional period for people who are better off under the old provisions, that is for a defined period of a year, so that there will be no open-ended transitional procedure which remains in being for a long period for a few cases. This would only be confusing for claimants and for the local offices, since such continuing transitional provisions would have to be covered in the Ministry's leaflets, forms and procedural instructions.
Perhaps the cost may interest the Committee. The Government Actuary estimates that, compared with the Government's proposals, the Amendment would result in a saving of £1 million in respect of people with a current entitlement to less than 12 months benefit who were not given the new standard 12 months. Off-setting this would be additional expenditure of £1½ million incurred by applying to people in a period of interruption of employment at the appointed day, the present" added day "rules without limit of time. The net extra cost of the Amendment, once and for all, would therefore be about half a million pounds.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Again I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive explanation of this point, which I think important. The transitional measures which the Government intend to take in conjunction with this Bill obviously more than cover the point I have in mind. Therefore there is no point

827
in my pursuing this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Earnings-related and other widow's benefit wider Insurance Act]:
LORD DRUMA.LBYN LORD DRUMA.LBYN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment purely to secure an explanation of what paragraph (b) means. I can see that if a husband was employed or sick when he died there might be a complication in providing for the six-months period for the widow's allowance to start again. I can also see that if he had been ill in the previous income tax year it might be unfair to his widow to take another income tax year. What I cannot see is why it should be necessary to change the relevant income tax year, merely because the deceased husband would have been entitled to earnings-related sickness benefit in the earnings-related benefit year in which he died. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain that.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BOWLES: The noble Lord explained that his main purpose on this Amendment is to discover how the regulation-making powers in Clause 4(2)(b) will be used, and I will gladly do my best to explain the purpose of this provision to your Lordships. Paragraph (b) of Clause 4(2) is a provision under which regulations can be made varying in certain circumstances the "appropriate income tax year" which should be used in determining the husband's average weekly earnings for the purpose of assessing the widow's supplementary allowance. This provision would apply only in a minority of cases. Its purpose is that widows should not be troubled with avoidable inquiries about their husband's previous earnings, and it will generally operate to the widow's advantage. In essence, the intention is that where the husband was getting an earnings-related supplement at the date of his death the supplementary allowance to widow's benefit will be based on the same earnings as those used to deter-
828
mine the husband's supplement. This is doubtless what the widow would expect, and it will spare her from having to provide, at a time of emotional stress, information about her husband's earnings or past employments.
Normally this will come about automatically, and the special regulations will be needed only where the husband's sickness began in one benefit year and continued into the next. Without these regulations, the widows' supplement would be based on the earnings in the tax year relevant at the date of the husband's death, in cases where the husband's supplement had continued at the rate appropriate at the beginning of his sickness. Where this meant using a later tax year for the widows' benefit, special inquiries would have to be made of the widow to establish the rate of her supplementary allowance. Such inquiries will, of course, be needed where a husband dies suddenly without any preceding sickness, but the widow whose husband had been getting a supplement when he died would not normally understand why she could not continue to get this supplement for 26 weeks without further inquiry. Furthermore, if the husband's sickness had lasted for some time, the normal rules might produce a much lower rate of supplement for the widow because of the effect of the long spell of sickness on the last tax year's earnings.
I should explain the significance of the phrase" or in the prescribed circumstances would have been ", which appears in the second line of the paragraph. The purpose here is to enable the regulations to go somewhat wider than the case where the husband was actually receiving the supplement right up to the day he died. For example, this power might be used where the husband was sick until very shortly before his death, but had in fact returned to work for a day or two. In short, the relevant income tax year for widows will normally be, as laid down in the Bill, the one preceding the benefit year in which the husband died. The powers in Clause 4(2)(b) would enable the income tax year before that to be used where the husband was getting a supplement based on that earlier year's earnings.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall be glad to study that reply. I must confess that I have not been able to follow it all. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the

829
explanation, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall be agreed to?
5.46 p.m.
LORD 1NGLEWOOD: While giving noble Lords opposite full credit for this consolidation Act (this is not a carping criticism; I am only seeking information, because this legislation is going to be of interest to many people in distress and is not just technical stuff that is going to be read by lawyers), when we look at the last subsection of Clause 11, which deals with regulations and goes back to the regulations revoked in Schedule 12 to the principal Act and then to Section 116, it is very difficult to know which of the regulations are revoked and which are confirmed. I wonder whether the noble Lord will look at this point and, if possible, even at this late stage, by redrafting make it a little clearer, because it is so extremely difficult to understand which of the regulations are revoked and which revived.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is a further point here arising out of consolidation. Unless I am mistaken, regulations which had been previously unsuccessfully challenged were written into the consolidation Act. Section 116(2), which I understand is now being repealed by subsection (4), was inserted to preserve the right to challenge those provisions as if they were still regulations. I am not clear as to the effect of this, but it seems to me undesirable in principle. I hope that the noble Lord will give an assurance that this will not he treated as a precedent.
LORD BOWLES: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, this subsection arises from consolidation. A number of regulations made under the previous National Insurance Acts were incorporated in the National Insurance Act (Section 116 (1)) to bring it into line with the Industrial Injuries Act where the corresponding provisions had always been in the Statutes and not in regulations. But so that the consolidation did not alter he exising law it was necessary
830
to provide not only that the incorporated regulations could be amended by other regulations but also, in Section 116(2), that the validity of the provisions replacing the regulations could be challenged in the courts in the same manner as the vires of the regulations. The latter provision is, however, constitutionally exceptional in relation to the provisions of an Act. The first opportunity has therefore been taken to declare in this subsection that the regulations in question shall be treated as validly made.
Perhaps I may add this information. which was handed to me about an hour ago. The various sections of the Act specified in Section 116 (1) of the 1965 Act reproduce certain regulations which that section revoked. These regulations, which have not been subject to scrutiny by Parliament in the same way as they would have been had they been originally incorporated as provisions of a Public Bill, were by this means promoted in status without debate.
The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills took the view that the right to challenge these provisions as regulations, on the grounds that they were ultra vires, which had been unsuccessfully exercised, should be preserved. They therefore inserted Section 116 (2) into the Act. As I said, this is the first opportunity to put the matter right.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, who was Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills when the National Insurance Act, 1965, was discussed, has to-day expressed to me the view that, as Government spokesman, I ought to inform the Committee of the effect of that clause and also of the history of the matter and the reason why the step now being taken is being taken in the manner proposed rather than in the form of a one-clause Bill. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD 1NGLEWOOD: I hope the noble Lord will agree that my question was a valid one, because there was a considerable point here, even though it is rather hard for anyone without a brief to put it into words. The noble Lord has said that this was putting the matter right, and that I do not dispute for one moment; but I hope that he, too, will not dispute with me that this method of doing it is not putting the matter clear.

831
although it may be putting the matter right.
LORD BOWLES: The noble Lord has raised an important point, and I am only congratulating myself on being ready to deal with it, I hope satisfactorily. Perhaps I may say this. The noble Lord asked whether we could have a look at this again at a later stage. It is proposed, as the noble Lord no doubt knows, to complete all stages of this Bill this afternoon, and I do not think I can give any undertaking in that respect.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 2), Bill read 3ª.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I just thank the noble Lord for his patience in giving the full explanations that he has done in regard to the Bill? We are all rather wiser than when it came along, and we are grateful to him.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, too.
On Question, Bill passed.

OXFORD DEVELOPMENT
5.55 p.m.
LORD SEGAL LORD SEGAL rose to call attention to the plans for the future development of Oxford; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last occasion on which a debate on Oxford took place in your Lordships' House was nearly five years ago. That debate was also notable for an intervention by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, speaking on behalf of his old University, and for the last speech in this House of a great Liberal Leader, the late Lord Samuel, who at the age of 90 addressed your Lordships from the Benches opposite on a subject on which he felt very deeply. The previous debate on Oxford took place some four years earlier, on
832
February 13, 1957; so that a further debate is long overdue, especially in view of the Minister's important Statement of January 26 last. In this afternoon's debate, we were privileged to have, among many other speakers, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, to whom both Oxford and its University already owe so much, and also, I hope, the noble Lords, Lord Salter, Lord Conesford and Lord Molson, who likewise took part in the last debate in 1961.
May I digress for a moment to declare my interest? I happen to live in a small, unspoilt village three miles from the centre of Oxford but situated in the Rural District of Abingdon. My home is only a quarter of a mile outside the Oxford City boundary, but I am able to enjoy all the advantages and amenities of Oxford—and these are considerable—while paying a lower rate than that of Oxford's citizens. This is a point to which I shall return later.
May I make, briefly, one or two other points? I feel that at this stage it would be utterly wrong to indulge in any regrets or recriminations about the past, to dwell on lost opportunities, or to try to apportion any blame. I hope that all our energies will be concerned only with the tasks of the future. Nor is this the occasion to indulge in nostalgic reveries of idyllic days spent punting up the Cher. That temptation is best reserved for our dotage, which membership of your Lordships' House often seems to defer. Nor is this debate an occasion for college rivalries to erupt, with High Tables jostling one another as at some spiritualist seance. The issues that confront us now are far too urgent and cannot lightly be set aside.
Finally, at this stage, may I put in a word or two on the last inquiry ordered by the Minister? The inspector has produced a report which is excellent in its recommendations, but does not go nearly far enough. Mr. Rochard Thomas was compelled to keep rigidly within his terms of reference, which were from the outset far too restricted. He has been unable to shelter beneath the cloak of anonymity, the prerogative of most civil servants. By virtue of his assignment, he has been denied one of the privileges that we value so much in this House, the right of reply. This, of course, we have to accept as inevitable: it is inherent in

833
the rôle of a civil servant. But in paying tribute to his careful, searching inquiry, we may feel some sense of deprivation at being denied his reply.
Why is it that the last debate on Oxford, which took place in your Lordships' House nearly five years ago, seems to-day so strangely out of date? Since then, the Oxford City Council, whom I believe to be one of the most enlightened and progressive in the country, have not halted in their tracks. At least four major new developments have since taken place. First, the new commercial centre at Cowley has been completed and has already proved an outstanding success. Secondly, at the expense entirely of Oxford's own citizens, and at a cost of nearly £500,000, the new Donnington Bridge has been opened, and has already drawn away a large part of the traffic that would otherwise have filtered through The High. Thirdly, the Oxford City Council, through their town planning advisers, issued, over a year ago, a detailed plan for the future development of Oxford, which is a monumental piece of work. By courtesy of the City Architect, Mr. Murray, a copy has been deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House. Although one may disagree with some of its details, it is, nevertheless, the fruit of many years of hard work and careful study.
The fourth major development is that the Outer Ring Road has now, at long last, been completed and, except for a short but very important section, from Rose Hill to the Sandford Link, has been opened to the public. It is perhaps too early, as yet, to assess its full effect in the liberation of The High. But various estimates have been given, including a 15 to 20 per cent. reduction in the traffic through the centre of Oxford, with probably a much greater reduction at peak periods.
In his Statement of January 26, the Minister asserted:
" I determined … to find a practicable interim way between acceptance of the city council's plan and the total rejection recommended by my inspector …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 723 (No. 34), col. 218; 26/1/66.]
Here I would urge that a practicable interim way is already available. It should serve Oxford well for at least the next
834
twenty years as an alternative to the Meadow road, and it is, in my view, largely non-controversial. Everyone is agreed that the Marston Ferry Road could be extended at once to link up with Headley Way, and so join the main London road at Headington. Further, the western end of Donnington Bridge could be extended beyond Weir's Lane, alongside the Great Western Railway to the site of the old L.M.S. station. From there, it could easily be continued northwards along, or adjacent to, the old L.M.S. railway as far as the A.40-Woodstock Road roundabout, with a link road South of the Morris Motors Radiator Works at the northern end of Bainton Road, to join up with the western end of Marston Ferry Road.
A complete inner ring road need not be established, for traffic from Headington could filter along Marston Ferry Road, and traffic from Cowley and Iffley would cross over Donnington Bridge. A spur road westwards from North of the old L.M.S. station, as envisaged in the City Plan, would link up with Botley Road, to ease the bottleneck there. Thus, a new throughway for fast-moving traffic could be created far South of the Christ Church Meadow, and without the attraction of the Meadow road in drawing a great volume of traffic away from the outer ring road to nearer the centre of the city, as warned by the inspector in his report. Not only would the Christ Church Meadow thus be saved, but the unsightly flyover in George Street, the pouring of much more traffic into Beaumont Street and St. Giles, the new Leck-ford Road complex of one-way streets, would all be rendered unnecessary.
For the last word on the Christ Church Meadow road, may I call upon the testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Holford? In a letter dated February 15, regretting his absence from our debate this afternoon, he concludes with these words—and I have his authority to quote them:
" The Meadow road might once have been the answer to the traffic problem of Oxford, as it was then understood. It is certainly not so now, and therefore the sacrifice of the Meadow would be useless, as well as damaging."
The five large car parks, whether surface, underground, or multi-storied, at St. Clement's, the Oxpens (rather than at St. Ebbe's), the L.M.S. station, Gloucester

835
Green and Walton Street could also be proceeded with almost at once, but their floor space should be extended to accommodate at least double the 5,500 cars at present envisaged. Other traffic arrangements in the centre might well be considered. A strong case can be made out that, not only should academic access to the University be rendered difficult, but physical access as well.
We all know how the entry of motor traffic into Venice has been totally prohibited. While no one would compare the canals of Oxford with those of Venice, nevertheless the Cherwell and the Isis constitute for Oxford a natural moat, with Magdalen Bridge as its causeway. But the creation of a precinct in the centre by the physical closure of Magdalen Bridge to motor traffic would impose such a hardship upon Oxford's citizens that I feel it should be ruled out entirely at the present stage. Instead, however, some restriction of traffic might be introduced. The huge lumbering buses could be halted near the Plain, except at peak hours, and a shuttle service of minibuses, able to use Longwall Street and Holywell, and the Broad, as well as The High, might be tried out. Motor access to The High might also he made selective for residents of Oxford and others issued with a special badge to display on their cars. All these alternatives for relieving the pressure of traffic on The High have long been discussed, and might well be given a trial.
Now I take a plunge into the depths of controversy, and confess that I completely fail to understand the justification for the commercial development of St. Ebbe's. To me this seems utterly illogical. For years now, parts of St. Ebbe's have lain derelict, or have been used as car parks. Yet the traffic congestion in the centre has increased so rapidly as to be almost out of hand. Why add to this congestion still further by creating a new commercial area in the centre, with its multiple shops and department stores, and all the extra traffic that these imply? Surely, with the prospect now of the motor traffic through Oxford doubling itself anyhow within the next twenty years, and trebling itself within the next thirty years, any additional commercial development is the planning of Bedlam.
Many of the multiple stores in the centre of Oxford have now opened branches in the new Cowley Centre, and are already thriving. The lesson of Cowley, I suggest, points the way to future commercial development of the city. If the boundaries of Oxford could be extended to far beyond the outer ring road, what the city has already done with such success in Cowley could be done in other directions. The Minister should create a new Greater Oxford, just as the new Greater London has evolved far beyond the boundaries of the old L.C.C. New shopping centres, with large car parks adjoining, could then be developed on the outskirts to the South, West and North of the outer ring road to relieve the congestion at the centre. These would add enormously to the rateable values of the city. This type of planning has proved the salvation of many over-congested cities in America, and provides the only real hope for the future commercial development of Oxford.
What, then, is to become of St. Ebbe's? I suggest that the whole area, or at least that part of it bounded by the canal and the Isis extending from Nuffield to Lin-acre Colleges, should be reserved for future university development. At present, it seems doomed to become partly a shopping precinct, a sort of dual-level Birmingham Bull Ring, with display points for advertising, and the banks of the Isis upstream from Folly Bridge— how aptly will the name then apply!— are due to become a recreation area, a sort of academic Butlin's. For it is not the Christ Church Meadow alone that needs a reprieve; it is the whole University. We have seen during the last few days plans approved for the tearing down of perfectly good Victorian houses in residential North Oxford to make way for a new Pitt-Rivers Museum, and the playing fields of Merton already have to make way for new laboratories. Only recently, a project was narrowly turned down for the erection of a huge pagoda in the parks. My Lords, it would seem that shrunken skulls are not only the relics of a bygone age; they are still stalking in our midst to-day.
All the University is offered for future development, by way of a small crumb of comfort, is a corner of St. Clement's, barely enough for the housing demands of a further 1,000 undergraduates, or the

837
equivalent of 300 post-graduate students with their families. Must the University be compelled to build ever northwards and upwards? This area of St. Ebbe's is bounded by two old colleges, Christ Church and Pembroke, and by two new post-graduate foundations, Nuffield and Linacre Colleges, at either end. What need have we to scour the countryside for the location of new universities while Oxford is crying aloud for further development?
There is another fair city in England where green lawns slope down to the water's edge, backed by some of the most glorious work in stone the mind of man has ever conceived. Is Oxford to be left behind in the race? Cannot we still transform the grim waste of St. Ebbe's into an extension of the University beyond the Christ Church Meadow athwart St. Aldate's with new colleges, new halls of residence, new post-graduate foundations, new lecture rooms and laboratories, new libraries and museums, set amid walks and landscaped gardens, and lawns flowing down to the banks of Isis, where the hideous gasometers now sprawl?
Is there nothing this age of ours can bequeath to posterity in terms of sheer beauty, allied to things of the spirit, as well as in terms of concrete and steel? Surely the industrialisation of Oxford has gone on far enough. Its University has been engulfed by shops and stores and super-markets, and swarms of motor cars now crawl over its surface like microbes over a diseased body. An ugly scar lies over the face of England. Cannot further industrial development now be brought to a halt, and some amends be made to the University at long last, for the desecration which our generation has inflicted on it?
Other sites in the centre of Oxford may also one day come up for consideration. The covered market cannot last for ever, and many a worse fate could be conceived for it than to become the site for an extension of the Prime Minister's old college, perhaps linked to its existing buildings—and here I am sure noble Lords opposite will approve—by another Bridge of Sighs? Oxford's citizens are now faced with a hard choice. Is their city's chief attraction in the future to be its shopping facilities or its University? If the former, then city and University
838
alike must inevitably suffer even worse traffic congestion and more physical hardships. If the latter, the city will not only redeem itself in the eyes of the civilized world but must ultimately be the gainer.
Cambridge has been more fortunate and more imaginative. But her own problems are smaller and far simpler. She nestles in a backwater on the highway to King's Lynn, whereas Oxford lies quartered by the intersection of two of the most important highways in England. The vision of Cambridge in the year A.D.2001, as outlined in The Times of last Friday, secures for the town its decentralisation to the outer suburbs and the filtering of its traffic away from the centre, while the University is afforded almost unlimited scope for its expansion, amid ever open country to the West. The city architect, Mr. Logie, asserts that:
" Despite a doubling of its population, Cambridge in thirty years' time will be even more a university town than at present."
While Oxford men might attach a doubtful assessment to those final words, nevertheless how far will that be true of Oxford in thirty years' time?
Of course, to reserve St. Ebbe's for future university development will impose an enormous initial burden upon the citizens of Oxford. The cost will be prohibitive but the loss to the ratepayers could be adequately compensated by the Minister in at least three ways: first, by the increase in rateable values (to which I have already referred) resulting from a wider extension of the city boundaries and the commercial development of the suburbs; secondly, by granting a degree of rating relief for Oxford as part of the national review of the whole rating system; and, thirdly, by designating Oxford as one of his four cities of historical interest to qualify for special consideration.
If the cost of this development of St. Ebbe's might seem prohibitive, let us remember that it is prohibitive only in terms of present-day values. In planning new roads to cope with Oxford's traffic we are planning only for the next decade or two. In twenty years' time new flyovers may well be needed to fly over the existing ones. In planning a new commercial centre in St. Ebbe's we are planning at most for the next fifty or one hundred years. But in planning for the

839
University's needs we are planning for centuries ahead. Even in a hundred years from now, our present-day building costs will seem as irrelevant as the costs of the 14th century, or even the costs in Hawksmoor's time, seem to us to-day.
My Lords, the present Minister was once the leader of the Labour group on the Oxford City Council. Let him now, from the height of his ministerial eminence, give a lead to the City Council once more, and hit name will go down to history as one of the great architects of Oxford. He knows the feel of Oxford's pulse as few Ministers have known it before. He has now a unique opportunity awaiting him, an opportunity that will certainly never recur in our lifetime, perhaps never again in all the centuries that lie ahead in Oxford's future. If this opportunity is now lost, I grieve to think of the verdict of history, and it will be a sad commentary on the achievements of this Labour Government. For I believe it to be true flat where the present Cabinet is concerned, never before in the whole field of political endeavour have so many owed Oxford so much.
The Times,in a striking leader after the Minister's statement on Oxford, made these comments:
" The Meadow Road is an illustration of the awkward way in which accepted town planning principles quickly get out of date, and are supplanted by new orthodoxies, and also an awful warning of the risk run, by even the most careful plans, that they will immediately be made obsolete by changes in the conditions they were supposed to meet."
My Lords, this is not a local problem we are discussing. All who love England, and many far beyond our shores, have a deep and abiding interest in the fate of Oxford, which enshrines all the best that England has inherited from the past, and many of her hopes for the future. To-day, Oxford is drawing to her from all over the world larger numbers of graduate students, research workers, and visiting professors than ever before. Her influence and her power to elevate the mind of man have never been so great in all her long history. Let us not abandon her now to commercial development, so that future generations may not deride us for our lack of vision. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.19 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, we have been reminded that this is the third time in the last ten years we have debated the problems of Oxford, and that, of course, means its traffic problems. I wonder indeed whether we would have this deep concern, whether we would talk of Oxford's beauty being destroyed, of the changes that inevitably must be taking place all the time, if our view were not always obscured by a grinding mass of trucks, vans and private cars. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Segal, for following in the footsteps of the late Lord Beveridge in 1957 and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in 1961.
In a striking speech the noble Lord has put some stimulating thoughts before the House and your Lordships. He has made it clear that it is not merely fortuitous that the occasion he has chosen so shortly follows the announcement by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the Oxford City Council's proposals for the review of their development plan. My noble friend Lord Mitchison on January 26 conveyed the Minister's views to your Lordships' House. Thus, another stage was reached in the saga of the inner relief road and Christ Church Meadow. We cannot think of the further development of Oxford without thinking of Christ Church Meadow—the threat to Christ Church Meadow. as many noble Lords would doubtless have it—and though the noble Lord, Lord Segal, has spoken of other matters as well, I make no apologies for intervening to put before you first Her Majesty's Government's points of view on the situation now reached.
I hope to convince your Lordships that although these road proposals are once again being rejected, a real advance is being made; it is no matter of procrastination or shirking a difficult question. On the contrary, we can look forward confidently for the first time. I must, of course, be very careful in what I say. There is no decision yet; my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has done no more than tell the Oxford City Council what he proposes to do about their review. True, they are most carefully considered proposals, but those affected by them are given the opportunity to make objections or representations

841
concerning them, and it is possible they could lead to changes.
Your Lordships will remember the three outstanding features of the Minister's proposals: one, that redevelopment of the St. Ebbe's area could go ahead; two, that the road proposals, including the inner relief road across Christ Church Meadow, were to be rejected and remitted to the City Council for further study; and three, that further studies should be undertaken to produce a comprehensive traffic and environmental plan for central Oxford, for only then could an improvement in the environment be achieved and the precise route of an inner relief road be determined. This is not, we say, going back to Square 1; indeed that was what my right honourable friend Mr. Crossman was determined not to do. Some way had to be found between the Scylla of acceptance of the Council's proposals, and the Charybdis of throwing out everything, which is what the inspector who held the inquiry into the objections and representations to the review proposals recommended. It could not be right to interfere with Christ Church Meadow, that unique survival of the centuries, if it could reasonably be avoided—no doubt many of your Lordships would put it very much more strongly—and it was here that the Minister could not feel satisfied that the City Council had made their case.
On the other hand, need this mean the loss of everything? Why, in particular, had St. Ebbe's to go down? In fact the Minister intimated that its redevelopment could go forward, and that is a big gain. I say this despite everything which my noble friend Lord Segal has said, because we say that it terminates the frustration of years, sets a term to the dereliction within the area, and makes for a beginning on the extension of the congested commercial centre around Carfax. At least, too, there is a hope of return from the hundreds of thousands of pounds already spent. The basic plan of redevelopment as submitted can be approved, for although the relief road is to go, the road section through St. Ebbe's which was part of it is needed for St. Ebbe's anyway, as what is called a secondary distribution. It is an excellent line for the purpose also, and can be up graded as a primary relief
842
road, if eventually it is decided that a relief road should take that course.
But there is another positive gain, anticipating that further studies will be undertaken, probably by consultants, for we can have a reasonable hope that such studies will lead to a workable solution. The fact must be faced, despite all the traffic survey work done by Oxford right up to and after the submission of their review plan, that more sophisticated techniques have been evolved during the last three or four years and traffic restrictions have assumed a growing significance. This was the case pressed over and over again by the objectors at the inquiry into the review plan. They brought some weighty advocates—Professor Buchanan and Sir Thomas Holford and Mr. Lewis Mumford, the great American town planner, put in a memorandum on behalf of Christ Church College. The Minister of Housing and Local Government concluded that it was conceivable that restraints in the centre of Oxford might make it feasible to consider lines for a relief road further South than the one put forward by the Council, but there appears little doubt that a relief road will be wanted.
If your Lordships can bear with me a little further on this point—it is a vital one—the difference between the Armer inquiry of 1960 and the review inquiry of 1965 is perhaps most apparent in the consideration given to traffic restrictions. We have learned a very great deal. Roads alone will not bring peace to Oxford; we have to examine what we must do to traffic as well, and work out the relation between traffic restrictions (which may take various forms) and possible relief road routes to find the best practicable route and combination of restrictions. So what we are really after here is a combination and not one single action, as it were. No less important factors will be cost and the extent of disturbance to people and dwellings and to other buildings. In other words, I am now saying that we can see how comprehensive must be the scope of studies involved and so look forward with reasonable assurance to a solution which will settle Oxford's longstanding controversy once and for all, and restore to the University area the tranquillity associated with ancient places of learning, possibly as an enclave in a thriving town; and this

843
aspect of an enclave in a thriving town I think has some importance here.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I intervene? We are all very much obliged to the Minister for stating what he has approved and disapproved, but it is very hard to follow. There is the plan of what the Oxford authorities wanted to do on exhibition in the Library. Could not the Government put in the Library a plan showing what the Minister is approving to be done now and what he is disapproving? Then we should really be able to follow the speech.
LORD CHAMPION: I am sorry that there should be any difficulty about this. Had I known that this might have caused some difficulty and that it would have been of assistance to the House, I would have ensured that such a plan was placed in the Library before to-day's debate. If the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, thinks it would be of some advantage to him and the House to do it now, I will certainly convey his wishes on this matter to my right honourable friend. When I say that this may possibly be an enclave in a thriving city, I suggest that is a gain, despite the apparent negativeness of deferring a decision on the relief road once more. Doubtless you will have many other questions on this review later, but I must leave them in the more competent hands of my noble friend Lord Mitchison.
I will now pass on to other matters concerning the future development of Oxford which have beer so persuasively put to the House by my noble friend Lord Segal. I must regret that I cannot claim his intimate knowledge of Oxford. What I know of it stems from six months' residence in New College during the First World War, and the shock of a return visit recently to a city which somehow, until that moment, I still thought of in terms almost of the horse-and-buggy age, and found it now a city whose calm dignity and beauty seems in danger of being completely destroyed by this hideous mass of traffic. To me, when I saw it last, gone was the city which, somehow, I associated with that age and with the reading of The Adventures of Verdant Green,which I am sure is known to everyone who regards Oxford as his alma mater.
With my limited knowledge, it would indeed be presumptuous for me to cross
844
swords with my noble friend on the various suggestions, some of a novel character, which he has made. He is, of course, well aware of the fact that the ideas he has put forward are very much the business of the local planning authorities, but I would be the last to say that all planning wisdom resides with those authorities, and I should hope that what he has said will be considered by all those who will be concerned with the future land use and traffic studies affecting Oxford. I am sure that everything that he has said, which obviously appeals to many in this House, and the suggestions he has put forward, are worthy of every consideration; but of course it is on the local planning authorities that Parliament has placed the primary responsibility; and it is a very onerous one.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government, as the planning Minister, has statutory duties cast upon him, and he has varied powers which he can exercise; he may give guidance on general aspects, and often does, but he does not tell a county council or a county borough council how to plan their area, what their road system should be, what particular parts of a town should be used for, and where they should put their schools and so on. The Minister may not agree with proposals put to him, but that is something quite different. I am sure, therefore, that my noble friend will not expect me to say whether it is right or wrong to extend the western end of Donnington bridge in the way he suggests, or to extend the relief road—which, incidentally, is to be worked out—northwards alongside the railway, or whether it is right or feasible to build major car parks immediately. Still less would I dare to comment on his revolutionary ideas for St. Ebbe's, though I am told that knowledgeable people will wonder what St. Ebbe's would be like during the decades of waiting which seems to be implicit in the noble Lord's suggestion.
Nevertheless, I will invite your Lordships' attention to a few general considerations. First, I would remind the House of the way in which we now approach the establishing of new roads and road systems, and the disadvantages of ad hoc decisions. We suffer to-day from roads built before and after the war which are inadequate for the traffic along them and run in the wrong place. Second,

845
we must be realistic while looking ahead, for a prosperous future can only rest on a sound present which puts existing resources to full use and avoids sterilisation. For one thing, that means keeping within the available capital resources and using what we have to the best advantage. Costing and economic considerations are as important in the field of planning as in any other field of national activity. Our resources are limited, and as a country we are more conscious of that to-day than ever before. My noble friend Lord Segal clearly recognises the very heavy price (he has used the word "prohibitive") that some of his ideas will involve. Third, future plans for the town or village where people live will not succeed unless they appeal to those people, and if they add to financial burdens unless they are seen as giving value for money. Your Lordships may wonder what chance there is for schemes which put people to great inconvenience or impose heavy burdens in respect of plans that are many, many years in the future.
Finally, my Lords, we in this House should be wary before endorsing the view that the beauty of Oxford is being destroyed and condemning its new buildings. We say that the motor car is its greatest enemy—there is no lack of determination to get rid of that aspect. But we must be careful not to confuse change with loss or impairment. The City Council, who are the representatives of the whole of Oxford, give high place to maintaining the character of this great University town. The Written Statement (that is, the policy statement) forming part of their development plan, contains special protective provisions. Plans for new buildings are examined and discussed at great length, modifications are insisted on for æsthetic reasons, the Royal Fine Art Commission may be consulted, before approval is given. There are wide differences in opinion and taste, not least among architects themselves. The new buildings of St. Catherine's College are a case in point. They are accepted and praised by some, and condemned by others. This building that we are sitting in was once attacked as a pseudo-Gothic monstrosity. It is now accepted by the vast majority as a fitting centre of a great democratic country and, as such, stoutly defended against those who would try to change it. We
846
have done this quite recently in this House and in another place.
I end by saying that we must be ever watchful to preserve what is best in our inheritance. So far as Oxford is concerned, to-day has shown, and will show, that there are many watchdogs for Oxford in this House. As a result of the Ministry's action, I am not unduly pessimistic about the future of Oxford. Indeed, I think we can look forward to some satisfaction arising from the action which has been taken in this regard by my right honourable friend Mr. Crossman.
6.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I think both the noble Lord. Lord Segal, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, have already said, the subject of the Oxford roads, to which attention has been rightly drawn to-day, is nothing new. It has become, as a topic of debate in your Lordships' House, what I believe is called in the horticultural world a "hardy perennial". If I remember aright, the last speech that I made for the Government before I resigned in 1957 was to wind up a debate on this subject—and an extremely unpleasant experience it was. I have been looking it up in Hansard,and it reads much more like an acrimonious conversation than, in any normal sense, a speech. Since then nearly ten years have passed. Vast improvements have been made in our system of national communications. Motorways have sprung up all over the country. But the problem of the Oxford roads has remained exactly where it was. Now here we are, discussing them just as we did ten years ago.
I have been thinking to myself during the last few days why it is that this particular problem appears so very difficult of solution. What differentiates it so much from other road problems? I have come to the conclusion—not, I am afraid, a particularly original one—that there are three factors in Oxford, factors which are not complementary to each other but rather conflicting, and which do not occur, in conjunction, in practically any other place. First, there is the geographic position of the city. Oxford is almost unique in this. It occupies a focal position between the industrial Midlands and the South Coast and between London and the ports and industries of South Wales. If a manufacturer

847
or trader in the Midlands wants to send goods by road to Southampton, they are very likely to go through Oxford. If a manufacturer or trader wants to send his goods by road from London to Bristol, they are very likely to go through Oxford. And that is quite apart from all the private traffic, such as holiday traffic from the Midlands to the South Coast. I believe that to be the first factor, and with the steady growth of road traffic becoming more and more formidable.
The second factor I consider to be the existence of the University, an ancient university, renowned not only in this country but throughout the world, not only for its academic eminence but for its architectural beauties. It is a Mecca for visits by thousands of tourists yearly from every quarter of the globe. And finally—and this, my Lords, is a relatively new but, I believe, immensely important factor in complicating the problem—there are the beneficent achievements of the late Lord Nuffield. Lord Nuffield will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the greatest industrialists and philanthropists of our day, but he certainly, by his very success, has greatly altered the character and increased the problems of his home town of Oxford. Those seem to me—and I submit them with all deference to your Lordships—to be the main factors which, in conjunction, differentiate the problem of the Oxford roads from other road problems with which we in this country are faced. As I see it, they have all to be considered together—not individually, but as part of a single problem —if even a relatively satisfactory solution of the Oxford roads is to be found.
What I found a little depressing when I read the documcnts—and this was before I heard the noble Lord's speech—both the Minister's statement and the proposals put forward by his representative after the public inquiry at Oxford, was that it is just that that had not been done. One would have expected that the first thing would be to examine what I have called the geographic factor and to see how much through traffic from North to South and from East to West could be diverted from passing through Oxford at all. If that amount turned out to be considerable, the problem would already have been half solved. But this wider aspect is hardly mentioned at all in the documents to
848
which I have referred. The only reference I could find was a statement in paragraph 12 of the inspector's report, in which he says:
" Further South, the Sandford link, the final section of the outer by-pass system will shortly "—
and I commend these words—
" be completed."
That is all. But even the absence of anything more is significant. So why not wait until it is completed and see what effect that has in syphoning off traffic from the City of Oxford before beginning to tinker about with the interior of the city? I cannot imagine why that link was not completed long ago. So far as I remember, it was said to be getting near completion when I last spoke ten years ago.
But, my Lords, it really seems as if now, at long last, it is nearly ready for use. If that is true, it might have an enormous effect in facilitating a solution of our difficulties. For I cannot believe that the majority of the drivers of lorries and great vans which to-day cause the greatest congestion in the streets of the city are so enamoured of the architectural beauties of Oxford that they want at all costs to pass through its streets. They go through Oxford because they cannot by-pass it. If we had a great by-pass completed, with cafés and all those other facilities which modern bypass roads provide, I believe those drivers would soon get into the habit of using it and avoid the city like the plague. That, I am sure, is where our search for a cure of the present congestion of Oxford should at any rate begin. Yet the Report (I am speaking of my impressions before I heard Lord Champion's speech; and indeed my impressions after listening to it are still very bewildered, and I should like to read his words before coming to any further conclusion) seems to bless the idea of introducing a plan dealing with the present congestion for inner Oxford in isolation before the Sandford link is even completed, and long before its results can be known. Surely that is not wise or far-sighted planning.
Then, what about the industrial suburbs which Lord Nuffield's genius brought into being? In my day at Oxford, Headington to most people meant Headington Hill, and Cowley

849
meant Cowley Fathers. But now both those places are large and flourishing industrial suburbs, and the people who live in them have acquired, so I understand, a habit of coming into the city to do their shopping because the shops in Oxford have been better than the shops in Headington or Cowley. This has immensely increased the overcrowding of the streets of the city itself. I am quite sure that we all appreciate that in a free country such as this is it is impossible to force people who want to shop in Oxford to shop in Headington or Cowley. It is a case for the carrot rather than the stick. One must make the shops of those two suburbs so attractive that the inhabitants will not want to make the extra effort of going into the city, but will prefer to shop nearer home. Very sensibly, so I am told, efforts to that end are already being made.
The inspector in his report says:
" Recent completion of the Cowley Centre, a large neighbourhood shopping centre, must have considerably reduced the dependence of this eastern area upon the old City-centre and thus have had a beneficial effect on traffic conditions in the central area."
But that is a very general statement, and the words "must have" are most significant in this context—it is just a speculation. There seems to have been no scientific enquiry into the effect of the Cowley shopping centre. It is all pure conjecture. And, in any case, the Cowley Centre has only recently been completed; and no doubt it is difficult for anybody up to now to know what effect it has had in syphoning off the traffic. Indeed, it is not even clear as yet whether the Oxford City Council are really anxious that these people should not shop in Oxford, for part of the new City plan is apparently to erect a new shopping centre in St. Ebbe's which will only tend to attract more people back into Oxford.
And lastly, what about the University? How does that come out of these new plans? The University, in one sense, can fairly claim higher priority in our thinking on this subject than the convenience of the shoppers and industrial workers or any other of these aspects which I have tried to deal with up to now. For it is, after all, the University which makes Oxford renowned throughout the world. Without the University, Oxford would be
850
just an industrial town—and not a very large one—like any other.
How does the University come out of the plans of the City Council, and the report of the inspector and the statement of the Minister? I am still not quite clear, even after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Champion. So far as the Christ Church Meadow problem is concerned, I should like warmly to welcome what he has said. As I understand it, Christ Church Meadow has been reprieved. It has not been acquitted, but it has been reprieved; and that is, at any rate, something. For the proposed road, which up to now was the official scheme, would no doubt have been a very serious invasion of what remains of the University precinct. Nor could it be certain by any means, as I see it, until we knew more about the effects of the completion of the Sandford Link and the Cowley shopping centre, and all these new developments, whether that road would, in its original form, have been necessary at all.
I get the impression that even the inspector himself was not entirely happy about the limitations of his inquiry, and that he had serious doubts as to the wisdom of starting on plans for inner Oxford, to the exclusion of all wider considerations for he went out if his way to say this in paragraph 24 of his Report:
" It is important that the present terms of reference he kept clearly in mind. This present inquiry was concerned only with objections and representations received in connection with the submitted proposals for alterations or additions to the approved development plan and in connection with the submission for confirmation of four compulsory orders ".
He went on to add, in the following paragraph:
" Even if the Council's proposals are shown to be wrong, alternative proposals can only come within the scope of this inquiry to the extent necessary to establish their feasibility and the likelihood of their being less defective than the proposals under attack."
That is surely almost as good as saying, "Please remember I have been limited to the scope of the proposals put forward by the Council", with the broad hint, "If my terms of reference had been less restricted, they might have well led me to very different conclusions".
No doubt the inspector was clearly right to insist upon the limits of his inquiry, because they bound him entirely. He could not go beyond them. But, my

851
Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said just now, we—Parliament and the Government—are subject to no such limitations. We can look at the proposals for reducing the congestion of traffic through the streets of Oxford from the very widest angle. We can take into account, in reaching our conclusions, all those fundamental considerations to which I have tried to draw your Lordships' attention—the Outer Ring Road, and so on. But if we do that, I still submit to your Lordships, with all deference, that the wisest course to adopt in the matter of priorities, in seeking a solution of this problem, is still first to complete the Sandford Link and see how useful an Outer Ring Road could be in siphoning off traffic. Then, as a second stage, we should turn our minds to improving the shopping facilities at Headington and Cowley so much that the people who live in those two satellite towns (as they are almost becoming) will be able to form a habit of shopping nearer home, and not preferring the shops of the City of Oxford, as up to now they have been apt to do.
If, after the full attempt has been made to limit on scientific lines the number of vehicles entering the City, the problem is still intractable, then will be the time to consider such devices as driving a road through Christ Church Meadow. If that has to be done, of course we must not shrink from it. There are situations in which one may have to do very unattractive and unpleasant things: but not, surely, before every other alternative has been properly tried out. I wish, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Champion (though it is not his fault), that we had had a little longer notice of exactly what the Minister has in mind; for even now I am very doubtful as to what it is. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will tell us again at the end. But if that is the conclusion to which the Government have come, if that is the priority which they now favour, then I am quite certain that we should all of us welcome the Statement that they have made, and wish it all success. But I must say this. First, I do not quite understand what the Government have in mind, and, secondly, I do not think that they themselves are quite certain which course they intend to adopt. What they have
852
done is to give us a number of reprieves. For that we must all be grateful, but beyond that I do not think we can go this afternoon.
6.57 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, I have to ask for the indulgence which your Lordships customarily extend to one who breaks silence for the first time. I trust that my subject will be thought suitable, and not so controversial as to be rash or ill-advised for a beginner. I have no competence at all to speak about town planning as such. I speak on the subject of this debate simply as one who lived in Oxford almost continuously from 1921 to 1962, first as a junior and then as a senior member of the University, and from 1955 to 1962 in my present office. I now, from my country home a few miles outside the City, frequently pass around it or into it, but never through it.
Before I express any personal opinions about the City of Oxford plans, I have to say that I have been asked to make a statement in your Lordships' House on behalf of the University authorities. The statement is as follows:
" The Bishop of Oxford is asked by the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford to say, on behalf of the Hebdomadal Council, that it welcomes the proposal of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to appoint consultants, with terms of reference to be agreed with the City Council, to examine possible alternative routes for an inner relief road within the context of a comprehensive plan for a road and traffic system for central Oxford. This proposal is in accordance with the University's submission at the 1965 inquiry, at which Professor Buchanan gave evidence on behalf of the University.
" The Hebdomadal Council greatly sympathises with the position in which the City Council has been placed as a result of the decision taken in 1962 on the basis of an inquiry undertaken before the publication of the Buchanan Report on Traffic in Towns;and it was glad to note the suggestion, made by the Minister of Housing at his Press conference, that it was likely that his Ministry and the Ministry of Transport would be contributing generously to the cost of the further studies to be undertaken.
" The Hebdomadal Council also strongly supports the Oxford City Council in the representations that it has made that the remaining section of the Marston Ferry—Cherwell Drive link road should be included in the classified road programme at the earliest possible date."
That is the end of the statement which I was asked to make. What follows is

853
personal opinion or comment, and represents no one but myself.
I, too, welcome the Minister's decision that further expert advice should be taken on the question of the proposed Meadow road and its continuation in and beyond St. Ebbe's. The disappointment of the City concerning this further delay is understandable and deserves every sympathy; but I believe it will be possible to proceed with some parts of the plans for St. Ebbe's, and possibly with as much as funds would in any case allow, in the next few years. Everyone would welcome some move to eliminate the desolation of St. Ebbe's so near to the heart of the City, and the provision of some further new housing on valuable land lying waste. In passing, may I say that the vision of the future of St. Ebbe's conjured up for us by the noble Lord, Lord Segal, is, as a vision, most attractive to me; but I fear that the attempt to translate it into reality, involving, as it would, a complete change of use for the whole area, would raise many more problems than it would solve.
With regard to the Meadow road, it would seem very likely that the general public in this country have the impression that since no decision has been reached on this proposal the traffic problem in Oxford is exactly what it was ten or fifteen years ago. That impression would be entirely false. Considerable improvements have in fact been made, and two points, in particular, deserve emphasis. First, the control of the traffic in the City by the police has become far more effective and adaptable in recent years. I consider that great skill and ingenuity has gone into this important piece of public service. It would be tedious to go into detail, but it is sufficient to say that at the rush hour in the evening the movement of traffic out of the City is very expertly handled, and that the greater control and freedom of movement has been achieved without a tiresome system of one-way streets. This has been a notable contribution by the police to the easing of Oxford's traffic problem.
Secondly, the system of outer bypasses around the City has now been completed —completed, that is to say, with the exception of one part of the Sandford Link, to which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred. The
854
position is that a bridge has been built over the river, and it is possible to pass from the Abingdon Road, to the South, over the new bridge to the Henley Road, just beyond Littlemore. It is not yet possible to pass from Littlemore straight over the Sandford Bridge to the Abingdon Road, but I understand that that remaining portion of the Sandford Link will be in use before the end of the present month.
Before the North—South by-pass on the West of the City came into use, most North—South traffic, whether it was light or heavy, had to pass through the centre of the City in order to cross the river. The present volume of traffic on the western by-pass is a powerful indication of what the centre of the City has been saved from. It has also become possible to prohibit heavy vehicles from passing through the City. The system of bypasses now lacks only one thing, and that is the improvement of the northern bypass, which is a section of the A.40. This dangerous stretch of road (to which reference was made in your Lordships' House, I think, some time last year), comprising three miles or so beyond the Headington roundabout, urgently needs to be broadened into a dual carriageway. Until it is, accidents, with a high proportion of serious injuries or deaths, will continue to happen.
The more effective direction of traffic in the City, the completion of the outer bypasses, and other factors which have already been mentioned by those noble Lords who have spoken—such as the Donnington bridge and the well-used new shopping centre at Cowley, which has been used, I think I am right in saying, for at least two years now —have all helped to reduce very considerably the congestion in the centre of Oxford. Procrastination in considering the Meadow road proposal has at least had the good result that it can now be viewed in the light of a completely new road system in actual operation as compared with ten years ago. Those who all along have doubted the necessity of the Meadow road have still to be convinced. Any southern inner relief road, whether over the Meadow or further South, will not work effectively without a severe restriction of entry into the High Street over Magdalen Bridge. I do not myself think

855
that anyone going from the East to St. Ebbe's and the railway station would suffer hardship if obliged to go a little further South than the Meadow route.
Clearly, a southern inner relief road will still be an essential part of the plan for the future of central Oxford. On the other side of the City, further relief is possible by carrying through the Marston Ferry—Cherwell Drive link road, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Segal. This road would drain off from Headington traffic making for North and North-central Oxford. The necessity for this road, and its beneficial effect on traffic in the centre, seems to be agreed by everyone. It could be implemented now without prejudicing any other part of the plan. It has the first priority for immediate action.
At the moment, in my opinion (perhaps this opinion is not shared by all, but it is my opinion) it is comparatively easy to pass through Oxford in a car, but it is extremely difficult to stop and leave a car near where one wishes to be. Parking to-day is a much more serious problem than the movement of traffic; and I personally find the cluttering up of the streets with parked cars, perhaps on both sides of the road, a much more disfiguring feature than the movement of traffic through them. So long as the traffic is moving, I do not find it particularly objectionable or disfiguring.
The City plan, I believe, provides for large car parks in St. Ebbe's, and I ask whether it may be possible for the City Council to proceed very soon with the construction of one or more of these car parks, in spite of the inevitable delay in some parts of the St. Ebbe's plan while the route of the central road is being further considered. Roadside parking has certainly reached saturation point, and all available open spaces have been brought into use. New multi-storey car parks in St. Ebbe's, or in any other part of Oxford, will not be a welcome feature of the landscape, but the only alternative would seem to be either continuing and frustrating congestion or underground constructions, which will probably be precluded by expense.
Looking at the future more generally, I should like to express a hope which I trust is neither mean nor unrealistic—and here, with great regret, I have to
856
differ in my vision of the future from the noble Lord, Lord Segal. If the City and University of Oxford are a national asset, æsthetically and educationally, I think they will best continue to have this value if the size of each of them is kept within strict limits. The student body of the University is now little short of 10,000. I doubt whether it can go much beyond this number if the University is to retain its character and make its own particular contribution to the life of the nation and Commonwealth. The policy of extending the number of our universities now seems to be accepted, and this, in my view, gives an opportunity for variety and for each university to be itself, which is in the best interests of all concerned, not least of the student population of the country.
Any considerable expansion in numbers at Oxford would give rise to difficult problems of accommodation, besides altering for the worse the whole network of relationships which goes to make up Oxford and education. The City plan makes reasonable provision for the foreseeable extension of university and college buildings, but not, I should suppose, for a greatly expanded University. At the same time, I hope that the City will not want to extend its built-up area. There need not be any development of industry, of other sources of demand for labour much beyond what we have already. A good deal of new building will go up in the new St. Ebbe's and give accommodation which is needed. Apart from this, it should be possible to provide housing for any increase of number of those having business or work in the City by development in the surrounding villages or other satellite groups separate from the City.
The charm of Oxford lies not only in its splendid buildings and their grounds, but also in the fact that at no point in the City is one more than a few minutes' walk from the open country. This characteristic can be, and must be, preserved. It can be done without damage to any legitimate interest. If I have rightly understood it, the City plan for a definite Green Belt around the present built-up area substantially secures the preservation of the setting and dimensions of the City of which I have been speaking.
The body primarily responsible for the future development of Oxford, namely,

857
the City Council, has probably received more good advice on this subject from more quarters than any municipal body on any subject in the world's history. Oxford being Oxford, perhaps that was inevitable; but I am sure that the City Council would prefer now to have some good news. Everyone would be pleased, and much would be gained, if there could now be a firm promise that the completion of the East—North link from Cherwell Drive to Marston Ferry will be put into the classified road programme at a very early date. This would be a substantial piece of good news, welcome to all; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give that promise forthwith.
7.14 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, it is my privilege to express the welcome, which I am sure everyone here would wish to share, to the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken. I congratulate him as Bishop of Oxford for his choice of subject on which to make his first speech. I congratulate him also on the way he has made the best of that opportunity. I wish also—and here I think I shall speak for most noble Lords who heard that speech—to express my deep admiration for the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the debate. I found myself in deep agreement with practically everything he said, with hardly any reservation or exception. I would now say only this. If he can persuade his friends in Westminster and in Whitehall and, still more, if he could undertake the possibly more difficult task of converting those of the same Party as himself in the Oxford City Council, all those who love Oxford will be eternally grateful to him.
I happen to have such an unusual combination of claims to be an Oxford man (perhaps the word "unusual" is an understatement) that I might, were the hour different, have not unreasonably asked for considerably more time from your Lordships than the five minutes I propose now to take. I was born in Oxford; my father and my uncle were both Mayors of Oxford; I was educated both as a boy and as an undergraduate in Oxford; I became a professor in Oxford; I was for thirteen years, with Sir Alan Herbert as my colleague, a Member for Oxford University—indeed, until the very last days when there were
858
such things as university seats. I am at this moment a Fellow of Oxford, technically, and not infrequently also, actually resident in Oxford. I have had a deep love for Oxford for something like eighty years, which is rather more than the normal span of human affection. That may seem very alarming, but it need not be.
I do not propose to discuss the general question of Oxford development. I am going to refer only to one part, of limited scope, but already very long-lived, that is Meadow road. Even on that, I do not propose to expatiate on my own views, although I shall neither conceal them nor disguise them. I want to-night to do only one thing. I want to recall to your Lordships what seems to me the amazing proponderance of responsible and representative opinion on the one point of the Meadow road. It is true that the Oxford City Council are in favour of a road at present. It is worth remembering, I think, that the first step which they took on what I think is a regrettably wrong path was at a time when, as was afterwards admitted, they, or at any rate enough members to tip the scale in any vote, believed that a statement made by the Minister in the relevant office at that time had a character and had a compelling authority which in fact it had not. But, even apart from that, grant that the Oxford City Council takes one course at this moment, think what there is on the other side?
First of all, the University of Oxford, through its governing bodies, has expressed by an overwhelming majority the other view against such a road. Secondly, the Oxford Preservation Trust, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, is now chairman and of which a few years ago I was myself chairman for several years, is now and has long been opposed to any such road. But, turning from institutions to individuals, I think it is true to say that practically all those who would be regarded by any impartial chooser (certainly in this country and perhaps out of this country) as experts with relevant professional experience to advise on the technical side on any such problem are opposed to this road. Our noble friend Lord Holford, after long and careful investigation, advised against. Professor Buchanan, whose recent Report has already had world-wide fame, went

859
out of his way—I say" went out of his way "because in the context in which he spoke the Oxford road was not really relevant to the point he was arguing—to express a very definite and firm opinion as to the folly and unnecessary character of the Meadow road. And so I might continue. I think that the noble Lord himself quoted one of the greatest experts from other countries, Lewis Mumford; and I might go on, if I could take the time and had the necessary knowledge, to quote what I think everyone would agree is an overwhelming preponderance of representative, authoritative and qualified opinion both of institutions and individuals.
I come, last, to what is the most remarkable and perhaps the most relevant matter of all. On two recent occasions, within the last ten years or so, as has already been remarked, we have debated this subject in this House. On each occasion, with the exception of members of the Government, who are not free to speak their own opinions but express the policy of the Government of the day, every single person was united in opposing this road. The people who so opposed it were people of exceptional authority and distinction. There was an ex-Prime Minister, several distinguished ex-Ministers and other people of great personal distinction such as the late Lord Cherwell. Altogether it was a most impressive array of people whose opinions were unanimous in those two debates, which were separated by several years. I do not think that there has ever in the history of Parliament been anything approaching such unanimity on a controversial subject.
I might perhaps add that one of the people on the first occasion when he was not a free man (I refer to the noble Marquess sitting immediately in front of me, Lord Salisbury) voiced the opinion of the Government; but in the second debate, when he was a free man, he sent a message expressing the difference of his view—as indeed he has already expressed it to-night, more forcibly and at greater length. I ask your Lordships to consider what an amazing thing it is that there should have been such unanimity among people of such authority twice in two debates in this House. They knew at the time, all of them, that they had never agreed on any-
860
thing controversial in their lives, and probably they never would again. There was only one common link between them: it was that they were all people who knew Oxford well and loved Oxford deeply. My Lords, my last word is that I trust that this debate is not going to tarnish that record.
7.24 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am going to follow the example of my noble friend Lord Salter and confine my few remarks to the matter of the Meadow road and the traffic problem connected therewith. But first, like my noble friend, I should like to say that this will be a memorable debate because of the speech with which it was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Segal. I am confident that the Minister will read with attention a speech from an influential member of his own Party which makes an appeal to him to signalise his period as Minister of Housing and Local Government by leaving a mark on the city where he was himself educated and where he served for so long and with such distinction on the City Council.
A number of speakers have said that not much appears to have been done in the twenty and more years during, which this matter has been debated, but it is quite clear that in certain respects the general attitude to this problem has changed very much indeed during that time. When the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, to approve a road across Christ Church Meadow was, as it had to be, referred to an inspector, the proposal was condemned. I do not criticise Mr. Crossman for not throwing the whole issue back to the City Council. For the City Council to have been told by one Minister to prepare a scheme including a Meadow road and by another Minister to throw the scheme back because it included a Meadow road would have made nonsense of Government. Reading the statement which Mr. Crossman has made upon the subject, I feel it is quite clear that he has in mind the probability that in present circumstances and with public opinion as it now is, it will be impossible to build a road across Christ Church Meadow.
I was particularly glad to see his reference to the post-Buchanan frame of mind which may lead, as he said, to a modification of views which were held

861
before the publication of Professor Buchanan'sReport on Traffic in Towns.It means that the Minister accepts as a fact the great change in public opinion which is partly the effect and partly the cause of the Buchanan Report. The three points in the Report which I feel have a great bearing, I hope a decisive bearing, upon this matter of the Meadow road are these. First, the Report indicates that motor cars must be directed or restricted in order to preserve a civilised way of life in our towns. Secondly, that suitable environmental areas must be created in towns, and to a large extent that suitable precincts must be preserved for pedestrians. Thirdly, that traffic can, and should, be diverted round these precincts.
My Lords, the greater part of central Oxford should be just such a pedestrian precinct. The High itself should be included, at any rate to the extent of excluding all motor vehicles from it. I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Holford does not feel that at present it would be possible. I see no reason at all why it should not be possible, and if that were done, if public opinion still tolerated it, and I believe that it would, then the great difficulty is at an end of having a road, a relief road, which would go far to the South of the Meadow. The argument against this wider sweep has in the past always been that motorists would be unwilling to avail themselves of this relief road if they thought a shorter route was along The High. It motors are excluded from the High Street, obviously there will be no alternative route for motorists to take. Having regard to the speed of motor cars and the relative freedom from traffic blocks, it is extremely likely that, using the relief road, even if it went South of the Meadow road, would enable them to reach the western side of Oxford in a shorter time than if they followed The High. Professor Buchanan suggested this road in his evidence at the inquiry and it is entirely in harmony with the doctrine of his famous Report.
In this connection, I was particularly interested in one sentence in the report of the inspector. He pointed out how the whole nature of this road has imperceptibly changed in the last few years, and from that it becomes obvious that the difficulties of having a road with a wider
862
sweep have now largely disappeared. He says:
"Preoccupation with the Meadow for nearly twenty years has enabled the Meadow road to grow unnoticed from its original conception as a local relief for the High Street to a fully fledged City by-pass, capable of competing with the outer by-passes and yet still expected to fit happily within the central area of the City."
This matter of the traffic is the very heart of the larger problem which has been discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Segal. I think that the Minister has been wise in seeking an interim policy. I think that he has been wise to allow the greater part of the City's plan to go ahead. And I am sure that he is being wise to defer for further consideration the proposal made by his predecessor of a road across the Meadow, and I have every confidence that in the climate of public opinion now, as a result of the doctrines of the Buchanan Report, we shall find that there will be no need for a road across the Meadow.
7.32 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I, at the outset, add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on his maiden speech? May I also say how much I appreciate both the eloquence and affection for Oxford, and for England, which characterised the notable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Segal, in opening this debate?
I took part in both the previous debates, of February 13, 1957, and June 26, 1961. I suppose that I made two of the angriest speeches that I have ever made on the subject of the proposed Meadow road. The reason for that was not opposition to the whole idea of an inner relief road, but the fact that on planning grounds this proposal was so obviously wrong. It was the duty of two Christ Church friends to answer me in those debates —my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who was my contemporary at Christ Church, in the first debate, and my noble friend Lord Hailsham, in the second. I also had the opportunity of giving evidence on behalf of the University at the recent inquiry, at which the principal witness was Professor Buchanan himself.
In those debates, I sought to demontrate three propositions, each of which I believed to be capable of definite proof. The first was that the proposed Meadow road would do irretrievable injury to a unique amenity and damage one of the

863
glories of Europe. My second proposition was that this road was unnecessary, and my third was that, even if it were constructed, it would not solve the problem for which alone it was going to be made. Every one of those propositions I regarded as demonstrable.
I am not going to say much about the value of the amenity that was to be destroyed. The quiet and unspoilt simplicity of the Meadow, and the superb views of the Cathedral, Corpus, Merton and Magdalen Tower, are an essential part of what makes Oxford one of the glories of Europe. Sometimes people who miss the essential nature of this charm refer to the Meadow in derogatory terms as a stretch of water meadow providing pasture for cows in summer, or as a pleasant pastoral backwater, and so forth. What makes it so supremely valuable, and, I think, unique, is precisely the fact that here, and here alone, we have some ordinary acres of the countryside coming to the very walls of the ancient City and University and enjoying a matchless peace. Not only is the Meadow unique in this country and, I think, in Europe: it has never been more valuable to the ordinary inhabitants of Oxford. When I was at Oxford, one could escape into the country on foot in any direction and enjoy the countryside of Matthew Arnold and "The Scholar-Gipsy". To-day, that is impossible. An unspoiled piece of country within the City is becoming as valuable as any Green Belt beyond the distant outskirts.
There is nothing original, of course, in these views: they were expressed by two of the greatest town planners this country has produced. I enjoyed the advice of both of them, when I was at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and of one of them up to the present day. They were Sir Patrick Abercrombie and my noble friend Lord Holford. I suppose that in the last half century I have shown visitors from almost all parts of the world round Oxford. Sometimes there was plenty of time and sometimes very little, but there were two things in Oxford to which I always took my visitors—Christ Church Meadow and the superb group of buildings near the Radcliffe Camera. These are supreme and unique.
864
Nevertheless, as I say, I was never against an inner relief road. I can see what led the present Minister to reject one of the things said by his inspector, in what is generally an admirable report. I am inclined to share the view of the Minister that some inner relief road will be necessary. But that does not mean that it has to be through Christ Church Meadow. In the debates of both 1957 and 1961 I pointed out the simple error in the reasoning about constructing a road through Christ Church Meadow. The error was this: that, in the absence of some restriction of traffic in The High, the road through the Meadow would not give any relief to The High. If, on the other hand, traffic was restricted in The High, then there was no need whatsoever to put the relief road so near to The High as Christ Church Meadow. The obvious course was to take it South of the river and, when it ultimately crossed again, to follow the line of the railway.
It is sometimes suggested that there has been no general agreement among planners, and that everybody was suggesting a different thing. But this is not so. There was substantial agreement between Professor Abercrombie and Lord Holford; and to-day I do not believe there is a planner of repute anywhere in the world who does not recognise that the idea of a road through the Meadow is planning nonsense. It is indeed nonsense from the point of view of the relief of traffic. I said these things, and gave reasons, in the debates of 1957 and 1961. What, then, was my joy in finding my argument on this point set out in a paragraph in the Buchanan Report, brief, devasting and to the point.
I am not certain if this passage is to be found anywhere in Hansard,and therefore I venture to read it to the House now. It is paragraph 391 of Traffic in Towns,and runs as follows:
" As to relief it seems to us that relief roads are often designated without safeguards to ensure that the general increase of traffic does not soon make conditions as bad as ever on the relieved road. This is a special danger when the relieved road has some innate attraction for traffic. This point is so important that we are tempted to quote the controversial case of the High Street at Oxford as an example. In this case a relief road has been planned on an alignment which it is hoped will be sufficiently 'attractive to traffic to give substantial relief to the High Street. The risk is that the traffic will continue to use the

865
High Street, and that only a measure of congestion in that street will force some traffic on to the relief road. As we have previously suggested, our approach would be to assess the enviromental capacity of the High Street, and then to consider what steps would be needed to reduce traffic to that level and to hold it there permanently. Such steps would almost certainly compel the compulsory direction of traffic, or most of it, on to the relief road. There would then be no particular need to choose an alignment for the relief road which would be competitive in journey-time with the old road; it could be put anywhere suitable. In the conditions that are going to arise in the future, as vehicles multiply in number, we think this kind of strict discipline of vehicular movement is inevitable."
That passage, my Lords, gave authoritative support to the argument that I, and others, had ventured to put forward in the two earlier debates. Her Majesty's present Government, and Her Majesty's previous Government, have both expressed agreement with the general principles of the Buchanan Report, of which this is an essential feature. At the recent inquiry, at which Professor Buchanan himself was the principal witness, the point which I have just made was amply proved; and it convinced the inspector.
I should also mention that, while I have hitherto spoken of the Meadow road, and the damage done in passing through the Meadow, that is merely one of the objections. It does equally unjustifiable damage both to St. Ebbe's and to St. Clement's. I wish very much that the Minister had totally rejected the road, because that, I think, would have had the effect, not of postponing for long the development of St. Ebbe's, but of making the Oxford City Council decide what was the development of St. Ebbe's which, in the absence of the road through the Meadow, they would themselves desire. Nevertheless, I shall not make any complaint about the Minister. He, at least, has recognised some great truths, and his conduct compares favourably in this matter with the conduct of several predecessors.
I would express two hopes. The first is that the City Corporation will not develop St. Ebbe's in a less worthy way than if the proposed road through the Meadow and then through St. Ebbe's had been totally rejected; that is to say, that they will realise, as I think they do, how much is now open to further discussion on the basis of the Minister's
866
decision, and will not carry out a development of St. Ebbe's which they would generally regret.
There was much in the stimulating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, which I heard with great pleasure. I did not agree with him entirely—and here I share the view of the right reverend Prelate—in wanting such a great expansion of University buildings and the University of Oxford. I do not believe that this would be in the public interest. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that more University buildings are needed, and I believe that one should examine carefully whether the commercial development proposed is in the public interest. On this, I very much hope that his thoughtful speech will be profoundly studied.
My second great hope—and I should like to feel that it will be shared by Her Majesty's Government—is that the planners of the Oxford City Council and of the University will try to collaborate as friends and allies, and not insist on promoting rival roads merely because the City, at the instructions of the then Minister, had put forward this Meadow road proposal. I am sure that there are good planners employed in the architect's and planning department of the Oxford City Council who were delighted that the Minister has rejected this road, at any rate for the time being. I believe that they long to collaborate in a much better plan, and that much better plan is to make a road on the line which has been recommended by every planner of note who has considered the matter, certainly any planner who has considered it recently. I am not without sympathy for the Oxford Corporation. They have been kept waiting a long time. If they put forward a road that I regard as a planning folly, at least they have the excuse that they were told to do precisely that. I share with my noble friend Lord Molson great pleasure in noting what the present Minister said about how out of date were views that had been expressed before the Buchanan Report had been made. That is most important.
There is only one other matter to which I shall allude before I conclude my speech. In the last debate I pointed out, as did others, that the areas threatened by this road were not only

867
St. Ebbe's but St. Clement's. St. Clement's, perhaps, is not due for quite such an early development, but it is very important. The proposed alignment of the Meadow road was most damaging to the good planning of St. Clement's. This point was made in the expert evidence of Professor Buchanan at the recent Inquiry, but subsequently to that there has been another development, which I expect is known to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, of which possibly he will be able to tell us a little more, though I do not complain at all if he cannot.
That further development is this. Professor Johnson-Marshall, of Edinburgh University, has been commissioned by Oxford University to undertake a study of St. Clement's. In this, he is being assisted by a committee of representatives of the twelve Oxford colleges with interests in the area. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, can tell us whether, as I believe to be true, he has already found that the proposed Meadow road, if carried out, would be seriously detrimental—through the line that it takes on the other side of Magdalen Bridge—to the planning of St. Clement's. If so, that is, of course, an additional reason against this proposed road, and I am sure that the present Minister and any successor will take that into consideration.
My Lords, I am sorry if I have detained the House too long, but may I say how much I disagree with some of those writers who, in commenting on the long history of the proposals for the Meadow road, seem to think that it is rather a pity that a great blunder was not made earlier. Supposing that the Meadow road is the disaster that every planner of note believes it to be, we can be very grateful that Oxford has not yet been destroyed by it. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Segal, for initiating this debate.
7.53 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, we are hungry, and I do not propose to make a long speech. I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend most warmly for a very interesting speech, and one that was obviously very deeply felt. The same applies, quite obviously, to a number of other speeches we have heard this evening, I speak only for myself, but I speak
868
with sincerity when I say that I have found it a most interesting debate and a most interesting exchange of views. Most particularly, I should like to express more than the common formal thanks to the right reverend Prelate, who spoke with such sense (if he does not mind my saying so) and with such knowledge of the problem that we have to consider. He tempted me a little. I felt how simple it would have been to throw aside all democratic planning machinery, Ministers, city councils and everyone else, including the University, and to hand the whole thing over to him. I am not quite sure that we might not have got as good a decision that way as any other. He certainly made an extraordinarily interesting speech, and I repeat again that I thought it not only a fine one but a very sensible one.
I am not going beyond this. Let us see for a moment what this debate is really doing to-day. It is providing a channel, and a very proper channel, for the expression of your Lordships' views. But I am sure I can carry every Member of the House with me on one point. We may not think planning procedure by any means perfect. I do not, and my right honourable friend the Minister does not, either. But there it is at present. It is the channel for enabling decisions on a matter of this kind to be made by a more or less democratic process. It is a channel which has been devised by Parliament itself, including this House, and we clearly cannot attempt to anticipate the conclusions that are going to be reached through the normal procedure, without interfering quite unduly with what we ourselves have taken part in creating.
This is not a mere form of words. We have at present reached the stage when a revised plan for the City of Oxford—a quinquennial review it ought to be it is in this case rather longer than five years, but it is nevertheless the quinquennial review—has been submitted to the Minister. He has intimated his approval of the St. Ebbe's proposals, and as regards the traffic routes he has disagreed with the inspector's conclusions. Of course, the conclusions of any inspector, as any inspector would readily acknowledge, are merely submitted for the information and consideration of the responsible Minister.

869
He has disagreed with those conclusions, and lie has invited the Oxford City Council, which is the planning authority, to reconsider the whole matter: that is to say, both the Meadow road and any possible alternative on the other side of the river—and there are several alternatives. He has gone one stage further. He has invited them to consider the matter on the advice of consultants, and he has offered—perhaps rather a unique offer, but I think a very good one—to help financially. I do not know what the amount is, or anything of that sort, but he has offered to help with the arrangements for the consultants and it is intended that both he and the Minister of Transport should help to the best of their ability in that consideration.
The Minister of Transport, of course, has a responsibility over this. She is in effect to pay a considerable part of the costs of the road. All I can say about that is that there is nothing in the Ministry of Transport's road programme at present, looking forward for quite a long time, that equals the total commitment there is likely to be for a relief road. I am also afraid that, much as I should like to, I cannot give an affirmative answer to the request which the right reverend Prelate made that a particular piece of road should be dealt with promptly. But I can assure him that his request will be noted and considered. I can do no more than that.
That is the position. There are different views—views expressed not only with eloquence, but with consideration of a large number of factors; views which in some cases have been expressed before, and in other cases have not. They will fall to be considered; they will have to be considered. But the right point at which to decide this is when the City Council have come to their conclusion, when they come back with the revised plan, when there will have to be an opportunity for objections. Such is the fullness, the somewhat replete fullness, of our planning procedure that those objections may result in the whole thing being heard all over again; and it looks to me as if it well may. My Lords, that being the position and this being the hour, I have no more to say, except to repeat to your Lordships how interested I was to hear everybody's views.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord one question. He spoke entirely of the City Council's plans and what the Minister was going to do about them. He said that the Minister would accept some, reject others, and postpone others. A point I tried to make is that it is not really a problem which can be confined to the City Council area. It is a wider problem, and I should like an assurance that he will take that wider view into account when reaching his decisions.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, with great and sincere respect to the noble Marquess, I am sure that I shall have his support when I say that I uphold the British Constitution, and under the British Constitution as it is at present this matter has to be considered in the form I referred to just now. I quite agree that it raises wider questions, but so do very many of these planning matters. It seems to me that they always involve the reconciliation of the irreconcilable and the comparison of the incomparable, and in the political world as it is at present there are only two ways of doing that. One is, in some form or another, by the Minister of the day—and then you kick him for having done it wrong; and the other is by tossing up. The noble Marquess will remember that the Greeks chose their archons of the year by lot. There was perhaps something to be said for it.
8.2 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, at this late hour it would be wrong of me to detain the House for any length of time, except to say that we have had a most useful and valuable discussion, and I feel I must take this opportunity of thanking all the noble Lords who have contributed with their wisdom and experience to the value of this debate. So many points have been brought up on which we are all agreed. I should like to endorse the views expressed that a limit must be set to the size and the growth of the University. It cannot stay at its present figure. A conceivable growth of 20 or 30 per cent. above its present figure is something which I think would meet with universal agreement; and even that extra number could hardly be accommodated in the greater part of St. Ebbe's. But at all costs let us avoid what has happened in so many universities in

871
America—developing Oxford into a sort of university metropolis.
The other point I ought to mention is that although we recognise the authority of the Oxford City Council as the major planning authority concerned, the two adjacent county councils of Berkshire and Oxfordshire should also he considered. Perhaps I may end on this note. I feel much more hopeful now about the whole future of Oxford than I was when this debate began; and hopeful especially that the words which have been spoken in this House to-night will go far beyond the confines of this House and, I feel, will not necessarily be completely answered by the speech we have heard from my noble friend Lord Mitchison. There is far too much at stake in this matter. I hope that the City authorities will meet with a ready collaboration, not only from the dwindling number of University members in their midst but also with a ready collaboration on the part of the whole University authorities, of the adjoining county councils and of the Minister himself.
So I should like again to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate,
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.
and I hope that they may feel that their contributions have not been in vain. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.