Lords Sitting of 18 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Lord Gray—Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the Peerage Act 1963.

THE A.1 ROAD: DUNBAR BY-PASS
2.35 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: 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 when last a member of the present Administration travelled, in his official capacity, on the A.1 road between Edinburgh and Berwick-on-Tweed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the last time a Scottish Office Minister travelled in his official capacity on this part of A.1 was on April 6, 1967, when my honourable friend the Minister of State did so, on his way to a meeting in Berwick.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that on the worst part of that road, the stretch which is called the Dunbar by-pass, there was a fatal accident last week, and last month four people were killed? Is the noble Lord further aware that it has been stated in the Press that we are not gong to have the by-pass proper completed within a five-year period? In view of the danger involved and the disgrace that it is for the A.1 road between Edinburgh and London, could the noble
192
Lord not speed up some action in this pressing matter?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that in June of 1965 he accompanied the Minister of State on a visit to the A.1, and it was then agreed that a method could be found of improving the Dunbar by-pass by means of a series of schemes which would spread over a number of years. It was also agreed, incidentally, at that time that the Renton diversion should be fitted into the road programme, and work on this scheme is almost complete. With regard to the figures which the noble Lord has quoted, it is unfortunately true that there was an accident recently, and four fatalities in June, though I should point out that those four deaths were caused in one accident and not in a series of accidents. The part of the road on which this accident took place is that part on which improvements are to be undertaken first. Work on the first section to be improved is being started this year; a further section will be started in 1968–69, and the remaining section will be done in the following year.
There are also two railway bridges which have to be altered. This is the responsibility of the Railways Board. The accident which occurred a week ago, I may say, was one in which a vehicle collided with one of these railway bridges. I accept that it would be desirable if we could do the whole of the Dunbar bypass in one operation, but it comes down to a question of the amount of money available and the priorities. Having regard to these, we could not conscientiously do the whole of this programme, costing some £350,000, in one operation.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, when it comes to a question of priorities, surely the A.1 between Edinburgh and London ought to rank rather high.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the unfortunate thing about Scottish roads—and they do not differ in this respect from roads South of the Border—is that the particular road in which any particular individual is interested at any particular time is always No. 1 priority.

RHODESIA: SABOTEURS FROM NEIGHBOURING STATES
2.41 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: 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 have any information about saboteurs being trained and organised in neighbouring countries for employment in Rhodesia; and whether they will protest to the Governments of any country concerned in such sabotage, and will consider reducing or stopping any grants in aid which they may be paying to any such country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, reports of this kind are always difficult to confirm, but if Her Majesty's Government felt it necessary to protest to any particular Government they would do so. It has frequently been made clear that Her Majesty's Government disapprove of violence, from whatever quarter it may come. Before aid is given to any country, all the factors are taken into account, but your Lordships will appreciate that development aid is a long-term project given to help the people of the countries concerned.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, while offering to the noble Lord my somewhat lukewarm thanks for that rather indefinite and impenitent (if I may use that adjective) reply, may I ask one further question arising out of it? Would not Her Majesty's Government agree that the British taxpayer is entitled to ask whether grants in aid are made, and continued, irrespective of whether or not the recipient country is violating the principles of international comity; and, in the circumstances indicated by me in my Question, is not such financial support our indirect support in itself of indefensible activities aimed at violent intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries? I fully appreciate the high principles enunciated in this case by Her Majesty's Government, but when their application becomes selective is that
194
not in itself a negation of their honesty, if I may use that word?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think I can do no better than reply to the noble Lord by quoting from a Press release issued by the Zambian Government in June of last year, in which it was said:
"Zambia does not support killings by anyone. Murder is condemned no matter whether it is perpetrated by rebels or freedom fighters. Critics should search their consciences and discover whether they are right in condemning effects and not the root causes of the situation."
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they or any of their agents monitor the broadcasts in Zambia and Lusaka?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot say whether there is a continuous monitoring of the services, but I have seen reports of some of the things that have been said. Certainly I deprecate some of the statements that have been issued over those services.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that all these attacks by saboteurs are foredoomed to failure—that as soon as the saboteurs cross the Zambesi they are rounded up by African troops and African tribes? Would Her Majesty's Government point out to President Kaunda the tragedy of the needless sacrifice of these valuable lives?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that what my noble friend says is, as always, quite right. I have no wish at all to appear to be supporting activities of this kind, but I must say this: that concentration camps and terrorist organisations are simply two sides of one coin.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since it is well known that Tanzania is carrying out this kind of operation, and since from information recently given to the House she is in receipt of subvention of something of the order of £5 million a year, would not the noble Lord think it is appropriate that this should be reviewed, particularly in view of the fact that she has now broken off relations with Her Majesty's Government? Secondly, would not the noble Lord think, with regard to aid and subventions of this kind, that insulting remarks made by representatives

195
of these countries, as in the case of Zambia, should properly be a reason for reviewing the aid, generous as it is, that she is receiving from Her Majesty's Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord might care first to consider that there is no capital aid at all now going from this country to Tanzania. In the second place, so far as any moral judgment of this kind is concerned, I wonder whether noble Lords, before they start issuing strictures upon any one African country, would consider the fact that if there are peoples who are deprived of full political freedom, inevitably some of them will turn to terrorist activities.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, could the noble Lord say at what date the subvention to Tanzania was withdrawn? My figures were quoted from those recently given in this House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot quote the date, but I will certainly send it to the noble Lord.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they have any information to show that it is the people of Rhodesia who have turned to terrorist activities? The impression that most of us have is that they were from Zambia. The noble Lord's Answer a moment ago gave the impression that it was the Rhodesian people, deprived of political activity, who had turned to terrorism.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, reports of this kind are difficult to confirm, but I think most people are under the impression that the kind of activity now being criticised is being carried on in Rhodesia by Rhodesians who go out of the country for training and return to their own country for the purpose of expressing themselves in this way, because full political expression is denied them.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government receive any information as to how the aid which is granted to these countries is actually spent?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, having already said, as Tanzania has been mentioned, that there is no capital aid going
196
to that country at the present time, I would add that before aid is granted to any country the purposes of that aid are carefully considered together with that country, and there is a very close technical consideration of the use to which the aid is put.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, have the Government any information which justifies the statement that these sabotage efforts are carried out by Rhodesian nationals?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount looks in Hansard to-morrow at what I said, he will see that I can go as far as that and no further.

CARE OF PEOPLE: THE WILLIAMS COMMITTEE REPORT
2.49 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: 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 (a) whether they have yet considered the Report of the Williams Committee on caring for people in homes and hostels and the problems of staffing such places; and (b) when they will be ready to announce their policy on the recommendations in the report and on their financial implications.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government join with local authorities, voluntary organisations and others who provide the residential services for old and young people and for handicapped people in expressing their gratitude to the Williams Committee for its recently published study, Caring for People. We are grateful also to the National Council of Social Service and others who made this work possible. The recommendations of the Report affect not only local authorities but voluntary organisations, and indeed private undertakings in many cases, as to the conditions of service, recognition and status, as well as training. All those who have been looking forward to studying the results of this important inquiry will welcome its central point, that these services so devotedly given by those who now "care for people" cannot develop without a systematic training. This Report will be most helpful for our thinking

197
together about what is needed for the immediate and longer-term future; but the Government will need to consider the views of those directly responsible for the services before coming to any conclusions on central policy, and I cannot yet forecast when any Government announcement might be made.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, and I am glad he appreciates the quality of this Report and is seized of its significance. But I should like to ask two questions. First of all, is he aware that if the Government succeed in following the main recommendations of this Report they will then have a policy towards the social services which not only increases benefits in cash right across the board, or reduces charges right across the board, but also shows more discrimination and selectivity in meeting the most acute and serious social needs with personal care, which is what is needed just as much? The second question I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. Is it not possible for the Government to say yet, with this Report to help them, when we are likely to see some results from this review of the social services which Her Majesty's Government have now had in hand for two and a half years, under two Ministers?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that, as Her Majesty's Government have not yet decided whether they would accept the main recommendations of the Williams Report, it would be wrong for me to speculate as to the consequences to follow if they did accept it. So far as the other point is concerned, I suppose that the noble Lord is referring to the Seebohm Committee, whose Report is expected towards the end of this year.
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, I was not. I was referring to Her Majesty's Government's promise at the first of the last two Elections that they would engage in, and were about to swing into, action for a great review of the social services. Mr. Houghton was first appointed to deal with that, and then Mr. Gordon Walker; but so far we have seen no results.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will agree that he is
198
now raising a matter wholly wide of the organisational question which he has down on the Order Paper.

ROAD TRANSPORT OF ABNORMAL LOADS
2.52 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have received from the police or other authorities concerned, about the problem created for ordinary road users by the transport by road of abnormal or wide loads; and whether they will make a statement.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, no general representations have been received from the police or from the local authority associations. The number of authorisations for movements in the largest class amount to some 300 a year. These are loads which cannot be subdivided or transported by other means, and are required for the development of heavy industry or for export. The police plan the timing and operation of the movements so as to cause the minimum of inconvenience to other roads users, but some delays unfortunately are inevitable.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him to seek the views of the local authority associations and the chief constables? The experience of many of us is that this problem is a great deal more serious than the figure which the noble Lord quoted would lead us to think. Also, would he take it from me that the figure of one police district in the North of England for movements of awkward and indivisible loads notified to them in one recent year amounted to 8,000, an increase of 25 per cent. over the previous year? This problem is very serious and is in fact becoming more so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to refer earlier to this figure. He will agree that it was for a locality on the main route from the Midlands to the big port of

199
Glasgow, and therefore it is understandable that on that road there should be a heavy load factor. But as to the figure of 8,000, I doubt very much whether those loads come within the terms of the noble Lord's Question. My information, which I have no reason to doubt, is that the number of movements of abnormal loads (that is, loads which are in excess of 14 feet wide or 90 feet long, or 150 tons) through the country, which come within the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Minister, is some 300. The number of movements of loads slightly below those figures is some 3,500. It may well be that the applications which the noble Lord refers to are for the movement of fairly heavy loads, for which people have shown the courtesy, and I presume the very good sense, of approaching the police for movement orders.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my noble friend is on a very good point here? Inevitably the number of these exceptionally big loads is growing and therefore causing greater and greater inconvenience. Would he ask his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport whether further research could be made into the possibility of moving these loads at night, with adequate illumination on the vehicle? This would surely cause much less inconvenience than moving by day, provided that the vehicles can be adequately illuminated.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, so far as my right honourable friend is concerned, her policy is to withhold approval. Where any of these loads could be subdivided or moved by sea, that is her policy. But, clearly, when we are dealing more with the field of generation plants, this equipment just cannot be subdivided. The suggestion about moving this equipment and heavy loads by night is, I think, a very attractive one; but the view of the police—and it is to the police that we must leave the judgment—is quite clearly that there is an added risk of serious accidents, and particularly of deaths, if heavy loads are moved at night. This is a question for the police, the professionals, who know their areas and know the circumstances, and it is far better to leave the matter to the police than for someone else to intervene from Whitehall.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would it not be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide the kind of roads that British industry needs, and does that not mean that many narrow places need to be made wider?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct, in that the sins and errors of past Governments now fall upon our own heads.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that whereas the length of these so-called awkward and indivisible loads causes great inconvenience, and whereas the weight may eventually cause damage to road surfaces, it is nevertheless the width of the animal that is more potentially dangerous to the motorist? Also, is he aware of the very considerable risk to the ordinary motorist on the narrow, winding lanes in Suffolk, for instance, when, on occasion, it is necessary to drive up the nearside bank, or perhaps into an invisible ditch, in order to avoid being squashed into pulp by these juggernauts taking up four-fifths of the road surface available?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is quite clear that the House is in sympathy with the noble Lord. I would agree with him as a motorist. But I would ask the noble Lord to consider this point. We are an industrial nation. We live and develop by our exports and our own internal development; and by the very nature of things this means that machinery and equipment becomes larger and has to be moved. And until we get the roads which previous Governments have failed to provide, this is a nuisance we shall have to put up with.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, in reference to the last reply, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it is not just huge, awkward loads which are on industrial or export business? The inconvenience to hundreds of other smaller vehicles, commercial and private, not excluding the Minister of State at the Scottish Office moving along the A.1, may easily outweigh the industrial advantage of the one vast, slow-moving piece of machinery. This is a question of balance.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, and I shall look forward to his co-operation and

201
help in the next Session when we introduce legislation to co-ordinate the transport services, so that some of these loads can be moved off the road and on to the rail, where they belong.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, is it not known that before these very long and wide structures are manufactured, the manufacturers themselves make a most careful survey, with the collaboration of the police, and that they are not manufactured on chance? It often means pulling down part of the walls of the works to get them out, but all this is very carefully surveyed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Marquess is quite right.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that yachts moving along the roads use the rule of the road and not the rule of the river, which is very confusing to all motorists?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring to his experience in the Isle of Man.

ALGERIA: DETENTION OF BRITISH PILOTS
3.1 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I desire to ask the following Question, of which I have given Private Notice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply has been received from the Algerian Government with regard to their continued detention of the two British pilots.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, in response to our requests for Consular access, the Algerian Government yesterday granted the head of the British Interests Section in Algiers, who is also the Consul-General, an interview with the two pilots. They were both cheerful, and confirmed that they were in good health and that all their essential needs had been met. However, no replies have yet been received to our requests for the release of the two men. Her Majesty's Government are continuing their urgent representations about this, and will press for continued Consular access to the pilots meanwhile.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while welcoming the information that after 18 days Her Majesty's Consul-General has been allowed access to the two pilots and has found them to be well, may I ask my noble friend whether he will indicate that Her Majesty's Government's patience is not inexhaustible and that they will consider consulting with the other Governments whose nationals are at present under detention, with a view, if necessary, to raising this matter at the Security Council under Article 34 of the Charter, as a matter which might well lead to international friction?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I appreciate and share the concern of the noble Lord in this question. I think that so far as further measures are concerned we might do better to hold our fire at the moment. After some considerable time we have been successful in our first aim of gaining Consular access to these two men. We shall continue to press for their release, but I hope your Lordships will accept that the question of further measures should not be too widely ventilated at the moment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any charge has been preferred against these men of an offence committed against the jurisdiction of Algeria? If no charge has been preferred, has any pretext been put forward for their continued deprivation of liberty, and is it now recognised that that is the responsibility of the Algerian Government? Also, will the noble Lord further confirm that there has been no ground put forward to justify the seizure of a British aircraft by the Algerian Government? Is anything being done about that, and if not, why not?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the positive nature of his question. I can make an equally positive answer, at least to the first part, which is that no charges have been brought against the pilots concerned, nor is there any evidence that the Algerian authorities plan to do so. Indeed, the pilots themselves told the head of the British Interests Section when they met that they have had no indication that they are likely to be charged. Of course, we realise that this is now a responsibility of the Algerian Government. We have made representations through every

203
channel that is open to us at this moment to the Algerian Government, and we shall continue to do so, both in respect of the aircraft and the pilots.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, can the noble Lord advise the House whether the international air organisations have made any comment on this situation? I am thinking particularly of IATA and ICAO.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as my information is concerned, no active interest has been taken in this case by either of the international organisations to which the noble Lord has referred.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, will the Government consider presenting a claim for compensation to the Algerian Government in due course?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will consider all these possibilities, but I ask your Lordships to accept that at this moment, when our aim is to obtain the release of these people, publicity for the things we are doing or are likely to do may have quite the opposite effect to that desired.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BUXTON, STOCKPORT AND YORK) BILL
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14); Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREATER LONDON PARKS AND OPEN SPACES) BILL
3.9 p.m.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: I am sorry—I was thinking of the paragraphs, but in fact I want to address the House on Clause 1 and to move a manuscript Amendment. May I do so now? I did say to the noble Lord as he took his seat that I wished to speak on the first clause.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I very much regret that the noble Lord has missed the opportunity of moving a manuscript Amendment to Clause 1 or Clause 2, although he can still do so in the Schedule. On the other hand, of course, he can still speak on the Bill later.
LORD CONESFORD: I think I can bring about the same result by amending the Schedule, but I thought it might be more convenient to everybody concerned if I moved the Amendment to Clause 1.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I remember occasions when this has happened before. The Question has been put and someone has missed it, owing to something else happening, and it has been put again. I think there are precedents for that, and I should like to suggest to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman that he might follow that precedent. Sometimes it is not at all easy to hear in this House, when people are talking, and it is quite easy to miss the Question when it is put. Obviously, my noble friend's mind was on something else, and his ears were not particularly receptive at that moment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: With the leave of the House—and of course I can do this only with the leave of the House—I will go through the Bill again from the beginning.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL: (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): I am quite ready

205
to join in giving leave, but the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is trying the Government a little high. We have had absolutely no notice of this manuscript Amendment. I speak without any personal connection with this matter. We were hoping to get to the last stages to-day, and now the noble Lord is bringing up a most complicated provision.
LORD CONESFORD: Needless to say, I shall deal with that.
Clause 1 [Confirmation of order in Schedule]:
LORD CONESFORD: Let me say at once in answer to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that I very much regret not having given notice, and the reason is that I noticed the matter which I am now going to bring to the notice of the Committee only as I entered the House. That was doubtless due to the fact that I missed the earlier stages on account of illness. I am quite certain that the Committee, whatever it may think fit to do to-day, will think that the matter which I am raising is one which ought to be raised. To make clear what my manuscript Amendment is, it is
"Page 1, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("with the exception of article 17 of the Order")".
That brings me at once to the Schedule, and I will say what article 17 of the Order is. Perhaps I had better read paragraph (1) of article 17:
"For the purpose of providing a parking place under section 81 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, a local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, utilise any part of an open space:
Provided that the part of the open space utilised under this article shall not exceed one-eighth of the total area thereof or one acre whichever is the less."
To speak from memory—and I think that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will confirm this—this precise provision was included in a Local Government Bill introduced some years ago at the time when my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was the Minister concerned. It was introduced in a Bill which came before this House, and the Bill has long been an Act. But I moved the deletion of this provision and, speaking from memory, I was strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin and others, and
206
we succeeded in getting this provision deleted. It seems to me an appalling thing that this provision can be reintroduced, apparently without any argument at any stage of the Bill, so far as I know, in either House. I do not believe that that is in the interest of Parliament, and I believe it will horrify the public when this comes to their notice.
The provision concerned, providing parking places, is not in the interest of the parks. It is not limited to that. I am speaking entirely from memory, but I think I am right on all these facts. It is providing general relief for traffic. There is no prima facie case whatsoever why one-eighth of a park or open space should be taken for this purpose, rather than one-eighth of anything else—oneeighth of a business property in the city, which, of course, would be laughed out of court if it were suggested; or one-eighth of all the betting houses. There are all sorts of things you might provide, if you once said there was a prima facie case for taking a particular class of property and saying that one-eighth could be used for the relief of traffic.
Open spaces in this city are not so common, or provided so excessively, that there is a prima facie case for taking them from the users of parks and using them for the relief of traffic. The proposal really is quite outrageous. I do not believe that it would have stood any chance in either House, had attention been drawn to it in argument. I repeat my apologies to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Nothing would have induced me to do this now had I seen it earlier. My only excuse for not seeing it before perhaps is a bad one, but it is that I was absent ill. I can assure him that, had I seen it before, I should have fought it in every way I could, because the preservation of amenities, in spite of the eagerness of Her Majesty's Government and previous Governments to destroy amenities as if they did not matter, is almost the most important thing that we ought to be considering. We are busy creating an almost universal slum in town and country, and it is time we stopped it. I beg to move the manuscript Amendment, which I have read out to the House.

207
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("with the exception of article 17 of the Order ").—(Lord Conesford.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is very difficult, I appreciate, for the Government to be in a position to give a firm answer to this point which has been raised by my noble friend at this stage, and, as he has explained, unfortunately without notice. But the point is one of very great importance. I must say that I had not known of it until my noble friend drew my attention to it. When one considers that this would apparently give a right to take an acre of Hyde Park or St. James's Park, all for making a concrete slab of parking places, I hope the Government will think again about it. I hope that the Government will not turn down my noble friend's suggestion out of hand.
This is a short Bill. Apart from this it is not a controversial Bill. My appeal to the Government is to adjourn consideration of it to-day and give further consideration to this point. I see from the Order Paper that it is down for all stages to-day. Now that this point has been raised I think we should not take all stages to-day. Perhaps it would be much better to adjourn the Committee and consider it. My noble friend can then put down a formal Amendment, and we can deal with the Bill quite shortly another day in all stages.
LORD ANIULREE: I should like to support very much what has been said by the two noble Lords. I am afraid that I had not observed this particular matter in the Bill, but I have in the past raised various points dealing with the London parks and the practice of the Government of allowing parts of open spaces to be developed and built over. I would very much support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Viscount, that we might adjourn the Committee stage to-day, and take some further action in the future.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): The noble Lord places me, as
208
I think he recognises, in the greatest difficulty, in that I have had no warning whatsoever of this until I heard him speak. Both noble Lords who spoke first on this made the situation out to be a little worse than it is. To take up the noble Viscount's point about St. James's Park and Hyde Park, the Royal Parks are not affected by this paragraph in the Schedule. It refers only to local authority parks. Paragraph 17 of the Schedule is based on a model clause which is already in effect in over forty Acts of Parliament affecting other towns in the country. These powers are already available in parts of Greater London and in the Middlesex area. What is being done therefore by this clause is a rather slight extension of this power to those areas in Greater London which do not already have it. Some already have it, some do not. In nearly forty other places it is in effect, and it would not cover the Royal Parks.
Having said that, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that if, after my explanation, he still feels that this power ought not to be extended to the remaining parks of the Greater London area, then I will move the suspension of the Committee stage on this Bill and look at it in greater detail.
LORD CONESFORD: I thank the noble Lord for what he has proposed. I am conscious that I placed him in a difficulty, for which I apologise and for which I am genuinely sorry. But, knowing that the noble Lord himself is passionately concerned for amenities, I greatly welcome what he has just said.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): It is now the procedure that the debate on Lord Conesford's Amendment be adjourned, and that eventually we shall come into Committee again upon the same Bill at the point at which we have now left it; namely, that the Amendment has been moved. We can then resume our discussion upon it.
House resumed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT) BILL
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14); Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUMMER TIME ORDER, 1967
3.24 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM) rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order, 1967, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on July 6. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Summer Time Acts, 1922 and 1925, provide a formula for fixing the period of summer time in any year, under which it is to run from the latter part of April until the early part of October. The Act of 1947 enables this period to be varied, by Order in Council, subject to the prior approval of Parliament. It is in pursuance of the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the 1947 Act that the draft Order now before the House has been laid. There is nothing unusual in the exercise of this power under the 1947 Act. Since 1947 it has been used ten times, including every year from 1961 onwards. What is unusual on this occasion is the background against which the Order is being made.
Your Lordships will know that the Government recently announced in another place their intention of introducing legislation early next Session to extend throughout the year—I will not say "summer time", which in this country would be a desirable but impossible objective—but the equivalent of summer time under some other name. I hope that your Lordships will not feel it necessary to debate the merits of that decision this afternoon, because there will be ample opportunity to do so when the Bill is brought before this House next Session.
210
But I cannot pretend that the decision has not had some influence on the terms of the Order now presented to you, which is intended to apply during the interval next year before the new legislation comes into effect. Certainly it has influenced the proposal to introduce summer time next year, not towards the end of March, as has been customary, but on February 18; the object being, at least partly, to begin to accustom people to the permanent change to be made later. But even if that change had not been contemplated, the experience of extended summer time over the last six years, and its generally favourable reception by the public, would have prompted a further step in the direction which the Order takes.
The effect of the date chosen—Februrary 18—is broadly this: that on that date the time of sunrise will revert almost exactly to what it was in mid-winter under Greenwich Mean Time—in London that is just about eight o'clock. But at the other end of the day on February 18 the time of sunset, already an hour and a half later than in mid-winter, will become two and a half hours later, being thus advanced to 6.30 in the evening. This is a significant time because, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, it will put the evening rush hours in daylight because the extra hour will fall just at the time during weekdays when most people may be expected to have come home from work and be able to take full advantage of it. It is doubtless for this reason that the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents—one of a large number of national bodies who favour the change—predicted last week that it will reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads.
Moreover, February 18 is the period of the year when the days draw out rapidly, so that whilst the disadvantages of the late sunrise will not be long felt, the advantages of the later sunset will accumulate rapidly. For these reasons—and irrespective of whatever views may beheld on the more permanent and far-reaching change to follow next Session—I hope that your Lordships will agree that, for pie purpose of the present Order, the date has been well chosen.
There is another unusual feature of this Order which will not, I am sure, have escaped your Lordships' attention. For the first time special provision is

211
made for the Isle of Man, where summer time will not begin next year until April 7. This has been done at the request of the Isle of Man Government. The subject is one on which they would be competent to legislate for themselves, but it has been left, as a matter of convenience, to our legislation, with the power for special variation which the Order now invokes. The clear implication of this reservation is that the wishes of the Isle of Man Government should be respected unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.
My Lords, it is for the Government and people of the Isle of Man to judge what is in their own best interests. It may appear somewhat striking at first sight that for seven weeks of next year the Isle of Man will be observing a different time from both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the circumstances are in many ways different. The effects of the times of sunrise or sunset on urban and rural communities are not the same. In this regard the Isle of Man is almost entirely a rural community. It has few commercial or industrial contacts with the Continent of Europe, or indeed with Great Britain, except through the tourist trade, which does not properly get under way until Easter. Next year Easter falls during the weekend April 12–15, and no doubt the authorities of the Isle of Man had this in mind in choosing April 7 as the date when the change should become operative for them.
My Lords, there are no other features of this Order which call for special remark. It is, with the differences I have mentioned, the precise successor of many others which your Lordships have approved in previous years, and it may be the last. For those reasons I commend it to the House, and beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on July 6.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for so clearly explaining the purpose and the working of this Order. I agree with him that this is not the time to discuss the merits of what is to follow next year in relation to the Government's intention to bring a Bill before Parliament
212
which will give us summer time all the year round. Your Lordships will remember that last month we had a very interesting discussion of this matter on an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, when some of these issues were raised. Therefore, to-day we can simply direct our attention to the special features of this Order.
As the noble Lord has said, this is really a paving measure to prepare us for the permanent summer time which the Government intend to introduce. That is why we have this rather exceptional feature of summer time starting next year on February 18. I follow the noble Lord's argument that the Government's intention is to shift the time of daylight to the latest time in midwinter. It would normally be about seven o'clock in February, and this will make it eight o'clock—the same time as it begins to get light in the middle of winter. I recognise that this will have its benefits at the other end of the day in getting most people home in daylight, and it will have an influence on the reduction of accidents.
When we discussed this very important topic a month ago, I expressed the traditional objections and anxieties about work on the farms, and particularly about the problem of getting children to school in the villages, where many children will have to start out in the dark. It could be that when this change of time happens next February it will be very unpopular in those sections of our national life. I would ask the noble Lord to make special arrangements to find out the general reaction to this matter. I would ask him to see what best can be done when permanent summer time comes about to overcome the practical difficulties which will arise in the middle of winter with many village children having to leave home in the dark and getting to school in virtual darkness. In this "trial run" some lessons could be learnt which might be helpful for the future. I have no comment to make about the special arrangements in regard to the Isle of Man, and I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strange, is not in his place, for I am sure he would have welcomed this gesture to the sovereignty of that splendid island. I feel sure that when he hears about it he will welcome it. Despite the fact that I am anxious about considerations of the countryside, I feel that the general

213
move towards having a common time with the Continent must be right. Therefore, as this is a preparation for that, I have much pleasure in supporting the Order.
3.35 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has entered a note of caution, which I feel ought to be noted. The rush-hour travellers who are going to benefit in the evenings from February 18, if this Order is approved, are also early morning travellers and early risers. This surely is very much a matter of winning on the swings and losing on the roundabouts. The early risers will be rising in total darkness from the middle of winter, they will reach the month of February when they will begin to see a noticeable increase in daylight in the early hours of the morning, but, just as they begin to see the benefits of the chance of rising in daylight, down will come the effect of this Order and they will be plunged back into what they were experiencing in the middle of December, back to rising in total darkness.
I do not understand the noble Lord when he tells us that this Order is to accustom people to the change to permanent summer time. Surely the way to accustom people to the change to permanent summer time would be to introduce summer time next year at about the time people expect it to be introduced—that is to say, five weeks later than this Order intends to introduce it—and then to leave summer time on permanently. Then, as the winter of 1968–69 draws on, people will gradually accustom themselves to the effects of permanent summer time. But to do it in this way by suddenly, on February 18, plunging people back into the dark early mornings which they had been experiencing in the middle of December and from which they will just be beginning to recover, seems to me the same sort of blunt instrument as the selective employment tax with which Her Majesty's Government seem to enjoy clobbering the electorate. I cannot think people will take very kindly to this Order. Would it not be better to introduce summer time next year at the customary time, leave it on permanently, and then people will gradually become accustomed to it, rather than to do it in this rather sudden way?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this is not an occasion for a general debate on summer time, but having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, there are one or two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. The debate which we had on this subject a month or so ago on an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, took place on a Monday. I feel certain that had it not been held on a Monday, a great many more Scottish voices would have been raised. I think in fact only passing reference was made to the situation in Scotland in that discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that this was a plan to accustom the public to the change when it came about. I should have been happier had he said that it was to enable the public to ascertain the effect of moving to this earlier time in peace time.
The problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred in relation to schoolchildren is important enough in this latitude, but in Northern Scotland it is a very serious matter. I have reason to believe that a number of parents' associations in the North of Scotland are taking up the matter very strongly, because daylight comes so very much later in those regions, right on into March. May I ask the noble Lord whether he could say in his reply to what extent the Secretary of State for Scotland has been taken along in this measure? May I also add that, certainly from the point of view of the North of Scotland, I feel that when we come to debate this matter there will be substantial reasons, which I hope will be elaborated by the experience in February next year, for criticising the proposals for summer time the whole year round.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, while I am fully behind the Order, I am impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, have said, particularly with regard to children going to school during the hours of darkness. This is something which we have to bear in mind very carefully, in the light of many nasty incidents affecting young children which have taken place in our country. What is going through my mind is whether the Ministry of Education have

215
thought about the possibility of schools starting an hour later. The children would still be coming home in the daylight and yet they would be avoiding darkness when going to school. Perhaps not during the course of this Order, but certainly when we come to the consideration of the full Bill, this point might be something of which the Minister of Education could take note.
3.42 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would again remind your Lordships that we are not debating the Bill, which is not before the House. We are dealing with an Order, almost the only purpose of which is to say that summer time next year shall start on February 18 instead of, as it undoubtedly otherwise would have done, round about March 20. So we are not dealing with some tremendous shock. We are not really throwing the people of Britain into Stygian gloom unexpectedly. It is a question of a little over four weeks earlier. I want to make that point, first of all.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is right that we shall be winning on the swings and losing on the roundabouts—that is, some of us will. But it is the overwhelming view that vastly more people will win on the swings than will lose on the roundabouts. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary consulted, I think, some 88 national organisations, including of course the T.U.C., the C.B.I., and vast voluntary organisations such as the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, and their views show that there is a very great preponderance of opinion in favour of the change which we shall be discussing next year. I am only referring to it so as not to be accused of not replying to noble Lords on this point.
Of course, Scotland has a strong point. I shall be astonished—indeed, I shall no longer believe I am in your Lordships' House—when on any occasion I come here and find that Scotland does not have a strong and distinctive point. But, of course, on some things it can be overdone. I was very interested to read in the Observer, for example, on Sunday, that disapproval by farmers is strongest in Scotland, where in winter the sun rises later than in the South of England. Of
216
course, this is a fact of which I was aware. The article goes on:
"Even so, the National Farmers' Union officials have adopted the Confucian principle of relaxing before the inevitable. The Scottish President, Mr. C. Young of Dundee, said, 'We do not like it and we do not see the need for it, but we will put up with it if it is in the national interest'."
I thought that was a very fair statement and a very statesmanlike one of which we should all approve.
Not only has my right honourable friend consulted these organisations, but of course they have expressed very helpful views on points. For example, we learned from the W.R.V.S. that mothers welcome this change because they find that the greatest number of disasters affect their children when coming home at night, so they welcome the prospect that they will come home in daylight. The police tell us that, relatively, there are fewer accidents in the morning than in the rush-hours at night, because people are more relaxed; they are not rushing so much. All these things are to be taken into consideration.
We are not discussing legislation which the Government will be bringing forward next Session, but I assure your Lordships that all of these points are being considered. It is not for me to say what the local education authorities will do in this matter, but I think we can confidently expect them to be sensible. The suggestion which was made by my noble friend Lord Royle is the kind of thing which will be considered in rural communities where it is necessary. They are on the spot and they know the problems. It has always seemed extraordinary to me—certainly, farm workers as distinct from farmers no longer agree with it; they welcome this proposal—that everything must be done by the clock at a certain fixed time. It seems to me that something which has been fluid before, such as the hours of school children, can if necessary be fluid again. I hope that, without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, I have covered the points which were made, and that generally your Lordships will now welcome this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

TELEVISING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
3.57 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. This is the second Report which the Select Committee have presented to your Lordships. Although we have now spent nearly a year considering the important question of broadcasting the proceedings of this House, I am afraid that we have not yet completed our work. One reason for this is that final recommendations concerning public broadcasting cannot be offered to the House until after the closed-circuit television experiment, and (if the House agrees to to-day's Report) the concurrent closed-circuit sound experiment have actually taken place. The present Committee will, of course, lapse at the end of this Session and we therefore recommend your Lordships to appoint a further Committee next Session to continue, and I hope to complete, our work.
As I have already mentioned, and as your Lordships will have seen from the Report, we recommend that a 2-day closed-circuit radio experiment should be carried out at the same time as the television experiment. I hope the House will accept this recommendation, for I think that both the Committee and the broadcasting authorities attach great importance to the experimental value of sound broadcasts of the proceedings of the House. We also recommend that a complete record of these experiments should be preserved on video and sound tape, at any rate until the House has come to a final decision on public broadcasting.
We are making progress with the arrangements for the closed-circuit television experiment, and details of the provisional arrangements are given in an Appendix to the Report. I should, however,
218
like to repeat the warning given to your Lordships in our First Report, that this closed-circuit television experiment will not give your Lordships an accurate impression of the physical conditions likely in the Chamber in the event of public television broadcasting. In that event, the cameras would be less obtrusive and the lighting nearer the present level.
Our last recommendation concerns questions of privilege and law arising from the broadcasting of the proceedings of your Lordships' House. The Committee have formed the opinion that such questions are so obviously bound to affect both Houses, in relation to all forms of reporting of Parliamentary proceedings, that they should be referred, subject to the agreement of another place, to a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses. We believe that such a Joint Committee should have strong legal representation among its members. It may well be that, in order to confer the necessary protection on broadcasting authorities during the closed-circuit experiments, your Lordships will be asked next Session to make an Order directing the authorities to carry out the experiment.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to express, on behalf of the Committee, our warmest gratitude to all those who have so generously given us their time, their knowledge and their expert advice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think all of us can be very grateful to the Select Committee, and particularly to their Chairman, for their Second Report, and indeed for the work that has been put in both by the members of the Committee and by the expert witnesses. They have certainly enabled us to have a much clearer idea of what the processes of televising the proceedings of this House will mean in practice. We now have a plan which shows us where the cameras will be and gives an indication of the extra lighting required.
On behalf of the Government and, I hope, on behalf of the whole House I welcome the Report. I endorse the view

219
that a Select Committee should be appointed next Session, as recommended in the Second Report; and, speaking personally, if I may I agree with the conclusions of the Report on the desirability of the closed-circuit sound experiment and on the desirability of preserving televisual and sound records of these experiments. On the suggestion mentioned by the Lord Chairman, of a Joint Committee to investigate matters of privilege and law connected with televising, I think that this is a matter which must be explored further with another place, and I will undertake to see that this is done. I should like to conclude with my sincere thanks expressed once again to those who have given so much time and trouble to the birth of this extremely important experiment, which will be of great value to the life of this House in the future.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, as one who has had a certain experience of television I believe that this experiment is an absolute disaster. It will kill the debates in this House, as it will kill the debates in another place. They consist of animated argument and discussion. Nobody will know when the lights are on them, and everybody will be playing up to the gallery.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BOOTHBY: Of course, my Lords, I would be the best!—I have no illusions on that point. I would be on every time. I do not want to be on. I would be the best at it because I have done it the longest. But I say that it will kill the debates in this House as they should be conducted. I think the whole experiment is an absolute disaster, and I hope that the Leader of the House will withdraw it. It will destroy the debates as we know them now in this House and, indeed, in another place. Debates, as I have said, are animated discussion and argument. With these lights coming on and off, with nobody knowing when they were on and when they were off—I should know when they were on, but normally nobody would know—it will absolutely kill it. It will be disastrous, and I just want to go on record as having said that.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I would only say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that I very much hope that he will wait until the experiment
220
takes place, when he will be able to judge for himself whether in fact his fears have been realised. I should also like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House very warmly, on behalf of the Committee, for his friendly reception of the Report, and other Members of the House for their tacit support of it. This is a great encouragement to members of the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. In moving this Motion, may I say two things? First of all, there is a mistake, or omission, on the list of Amendments—in some copies I think it has been written in—in that above Amendment No. 6 there ought to be the words "Clause 9", because Amendment No. 6 is not an Amendment to Clause 7 but an Amendment to Clause 9. Secondly, unless there is any dissent to it, I venture to take Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together and Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together, because they deal with separate points: Nos. 1, 2 and 3 deal with one point and Nos. 4 and 5 with another point. My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to Bill [217] as first printed for the Commons.]
  [Nos. 1 to 3]
  Clause 7, page 4, line 9, leave out ("of that Act")
  Clause 7, page 4, line 11, at end insert ("and proceedings under section 39 (declarations of legitimacy, &c.,)")
  Clause 7, page 4, line 15, leave out from ("than ") to end of line 16 and insert ("such proceedings as are specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection;")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of these Amendments is to remove legitimacy proceedings from the ambit of the rule-making powers

  221
  conferred by the Bill. Under Clause 7 of the Bill as passed by your Lordships' House, rules for the purposes of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 are required, wtih certain exceptions, to be made by the rule-making authority mentioned in subsection (1). Legitimacy proceedings are brought by virtue of Section 39 of the Act of 1965. Subsection (1) of this section enables the High Court to grant a decree of legitimacy, and subsection (2) enables the High Court or a county court to declare that a person has been legitimated by the Legitimacy Act 1926. At present, the procedure in the High Court is regulated by rules made by the Supreme Court Rule Committee, and the procedure in the county court is regulated by rules made by the County Court Rule Committee. The Bill does not alter the jurisdiction under Section 39, and there would be no advantage in transferring the rule-making powers to the Rule Committee under the Bill. So far as the county court is concerned, such a transfer would only create confusion, for the provisions relating to proceedings under subsection (2) would be the only provisions in the new rules which would apply to all courts. I accordingly beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [Nos. 4 and 5]
  Clause 7, page 4, line 22, after ("barristers ") insert ("being members of the General Council of the Bar")
  Clause 7, page 4, line 23, at end insert ("of whom one shall be a member of the Council of the Law Society and the other a member of the Law Society and also of a local law society")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The object of these Amendments is to ensure that the barrister and solicitor members of the rule-making authority under the Bill are members of their professional bodies. Clause 7(1) provides that rules under the Bill shall be made by the Lord Chancellor together with any four or more of the
  222
  following persons; namely, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, one puisne Judge attached to that Division, one registrar of the principal probate registry, two county court judges, one county court registrar, two practising barristers and two practising solicitors. The members (apart from the President) are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for such time as he may think fit.
  In the case of the Supreme Court Rule Committee, which has hitherto made the rules for matrimonial causes, Section 99 (4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, requires the two barrister members to be members of the Bar Council, one of the solicitor members to be a member of the Council of the Law Society and the other solicitor member to be a member of the Law Society and also of a provincial law society. The Bar Council and the Law Society have urged that, in order to secure proper representation of the two branches of the legal profession on the rule-making body under the Bill, the barrister and solicitor members should have to be similarly qualified. The Amendments give effect to this suggestion. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [No. 6]:
  Clause 9, page 5, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 12.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This is an Amendment to Clause 9. The Table have never really got into my head what the position is in a case like this. This clause was, of course, a part of the Bill, the Bill being a Bill which started in your Lordships' House; and when it left here and went to another place this clause was left out for privilege reasons, because it dealt with money. So technically, I suppose, when the Bill arrived in another place there was no Clause 9 in it. But by an extraordinary coincidence the clause which they put into the Bill was exactly

  223
  the same as the clause which your Lordships had considered here. What they have done is to make an alteration in what one might call their first draft.
  The effect of the Amendment is to enable a solicitor or counsel to elect for taxation in lieu of any fixed costs which may be prescribed by rules of court without being at risk if he receives no more on taxation than he would have received by way of fixed costs. As passed by your Lordships the clause provided that in these circumstances the cost of taxation would be disallowed. The proposed costs sanction was criticised in another place as niggling and unjustifiable, and it was said to be unprecedented. It is true that there is no exact precedent for a sanction of this kind in relation to fixed costs, but under the Solicitors Act 1957 and the Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court there are provisions for the disallowance of the costs of taxation where on the taxation of a bill as between a solicitor and his own client, or on the taxation of costs which are to be paid out of a fund other than the Legal Aid Fund, one-sixth of the amount of the bill is taxed off.
  However, it has become clear that little would be gained by retaining the sanction proposed in Clause 9. The amount of the taxing fee and the costs allowed to a solicitor for attending taxation would probably amount to about £4 10s. in the average undefended divorce case in the county court, and it is unlikely that a solicitor would be deterred by a penalty of this amount if he thought there was any likelihood of his obtaining more on taxation than he would by way of the fixed costs. If the fixed costs are reasonable, most solicitors will no doubt be content to accept them rather than go to the trouble of drawing the bill and attending for taxation. Moreover, the sanction would not operate very satisfactorily in practice in the case of counsel's fees if counsel had done more work than was allowed for by the fixed costs and yet the solicitor was nevertheless prepared to accept them so far as his own work was concerned. It is accordingly proposed that the sanction should be deleted. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF LIQUID FUEL BILL
4.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, this Bill is designed to enable the Government to deal with a situation which has not yet arisen and which the Government hope never will arise. The situation I refer to would be one in which we should be faced with such a serious shortage of oil as a result of the current dislocation of supplies that it would be necessary for the Government to exercise control over the use of oil in this country. No such shortage has yet occurred, and it is so far impossible to predict whether it will occur at some time during the period contemplated by the Bill. I will come later to the reason why, if there is no shortage now nor any immediate prospect of one, it is necessary for the Government to seek the powers given by the Bill without delay. It may be convenient first if I say something about the circumstances which led to the moving of the Bill.
As we all know, the Suez Canal has been closed and various bans on oil supplies to this country have been imposed by the Arab States. For some weeks after the start of these events normal supplies continued to arrive in tankers already at sea West of the Canal. Loaded tankers caught East of the Canal had to go round the Cape and this imposed a delay on their arrival. Time was needed to sort out the confused situation which resulted and to send further tankers out to the Middle East round the Cape. Oil from sources unaffected by these events, whether East of Suez or in the Western Hemisphere, is arriving in this country and supplies of it are being built up. Nevertheless, although we entered this situation with a very strong stock position, there has inevitably been some drain on our stocks while the pattern of transport was being reorganised by the oil industry.
The future level of our stocks depends on the success of the tremendous effort which the industry is making to deal with the immense problems with which it is faced. Stocks generally are still

225
well above a level that could be called critical, and it is hoped that this will remain the position. The problem with which we are at present faced is not lack of stocks, or lack of sources of oil, but facilities to transport the oil. I do not propose to go into further detail about the state of our stocks or about the prospects of a return to a more normal supply situation. These are very delicate matters, for reasons which I am sure will be obvious to all, and it would be wrong for me to disclose more information, or to speculate further, since what is said here could command a wide audience not only in this country but overseas. Suffice it to say that, while the Government have every hope that the present difficulties can be surmounted, there can at this stage be no certainty about the outcome.
This brings me to the need for this Bill at this time. The purpose of the Bill, which is set out in Clause 1, is essentially to enable the Minister of Power to control the supply, acquisition and consumption of liquid fuel. The passing of the Bill would not in itself bring such control any nearer. As I have said, there is not, at this moment, need for control. The Government have taken no decision about this, although they are, of course, watching the situation closely. But although there is no call for control now, one cannot exclude the possibility of unfavourable developments which may require control to be exercised at a later stage. The Government have at present no powers to exercise control. It will be recalled that some ten years ago, during the Suez crisis, the Government rationed petrol and introduced other restrictions on the use of oil. They were then able to avail themselves of the powers provided by the Defence Regulations and to make various statutory orders under them. These regulations have long since been revoked, and there are no standing powers available in their stead. To acquire the necessary powers only two courses are open to the Government: one is the introduction of this Bill; the other is to invoke, at the appropriate time, emergency procedure. This would entail the proclamation of an emergency and the making of the necessary emergency regulations under it.
226
But this procedure is open to the great objection that an emergency would need to be proclaimed afresh from month to month, and similarly the regulations made under it would need to be renewed at monthly intervals. The disadvantages of this process are obvious. If, for example—and I emphasise that this is a hypothetical example—the Government were to decide very soon after Parliament had risen for the Summer Recess that the situation required some control to be introduced, Parliament, under the emergency procedure, would have to be recalled, possibly two or three times, during the Recess in order to enable the control to be exercised for any length of time. In the Government's view this would be a clumsy and inappropriate procedure. They have therefore preferred to introduce this Bill. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there are objections at this time to invoking the emergency procedure, as a matter of principle. Under the Bill, which I repeat is purely an enabling measure, the Minister of Power could make orders regulating or prohibiting the supply, acquisition or consumption of liquid fuel. The Minister could also give directions to refiners and suppliers of liquid fuel so as to ensure the best possible pattern of supply in circumstances of shortage, whether of oil generally or of particular types of oil.
Although the difficulties with which we may be faced would spring from a shortage of oil, the powers of control which the Bill proposes for the Minister of Power would extend to all liquid fuel, not only petroleum products. The reason for this is that if there were a shortage of petroleum products, it might have repercussions for other liquid fuels, for example those derived from coal. A situation might arise in which it would be desirable for the Minister to be able to make arrangements to supplement supplies of oil with other liquid fuels, or to ensure that those who ordinarily depend on other liquid fuels did not find themselves in difficulty as a result of a sudden increase in demand for them. Here I would say that liquid fuel as defined in Clause 7(1) does not include lubricating oils or grease. This is because these are not used as fuel. The Bill therefore provides for the Minister to cover the supply of lubricants as well

227
as liquid fuel in any directions he might need to make.
The Bill also provides in Clause 3 for the Minister of Transport to take steps to ensure the most efficient use of the available goods vehicles in the event of petrol rationing. If operators of goods vehicles had to manage with less motor spirit or derve than they customarily use, it would obviously be sensible for them to be free as far as possible to make the optimum use of their vehicles. Accordingly, the Bill empowers the Minister of Transport to relax certain restrictions under the Road Traffic Act 1960 on the carrying of goods for hire or reward or for own account—but only to the extent necessary to reinforce any measures of control which the Minister of Power may take.
My Lords, these are the two main powers which the Government seek to obtain through this Bill—the power for the Minister of Power to exercise control, and the power for the Minister of Transport to relax restrictions. The Bill also, of course, contains necessary supporting provisions. Among them in Clause 4 are the Parliamentary procedure for the handling of Orders made under the Bill (these would be subject to negative resolution procedure); the service of notices and other documents; the persons to whom the Bill applies; authority for duly authorised Government officials to require undertakings to produce documents and, in certain circumstances, to obtain warrants for entry and search of premises; and the establishment of offences under the Bill and of penalties for them. Your Lordships will have noticed that Clause 4 refers back to the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964, and, in effect, applies them in this legislation.
The Bill is intended to apply both to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland (this is dealt with in Clause 10) would be prepared to play their part in the application of any restrictions which may be called for. But they, like the Government at Westminster, are presently without power to exercise control. The Bill will enable any restrictions which the Minister of Power may see fit to introduce in Great Britain to be adopted in Northern Ireland
228
and to be operated on his behalf by the appropriate Northern Ireland Government Department. Similarly the Bill provides for the application of restrictions in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which depend on this country for their supplies of oil. It would be for the Island authorities to decide the nature and extent of any restrictions which they might choose to operate. Clause 8 simply provides for the appropriate provisions to be extended to the Islands by Order in Council.
I am afraid it is impossible at this stage to give any reliable estimates of the cost of any operations which may need to be undertaken under the Bill. So much would depend on what kind of restrictions were needed, when they might start, and for how long they might last. Undoubtedly, if petrol rationing were called for, the cost of the staff needed to administer a rationing scheme would be a substantial item. During the Suez crisis some 1,800 staff were needed to administer the rationing of private motor vehicles. In those days there were only about 4 million cars on the road; now the figure is something round 10 million. Present arrangements provide for the rationing of this vastly increased number of cars to be undertaken by a staff of some 2,500—the increase in staff being a good deal less proportionately, I am happy to say, than the increase in the number of cars. This could not help but be a substantial item of expenditure. Not only is there the cost of staff but also the cost of accommodation for them, and the cost of the coupons which would be required and of supporting operations by the post offices and local authorities' local taxation offices. The Bill provides specifically for the reimbursement of expenditure which may be incurred by the Postmaster General and local authorities in the event of petrol rationing. The Minister of Power would be responsible for the costs of the former, and the Minister of Transport for those of the latter. Otherwise expenditure by Government Departments would be met from moneys provided directly by Parliament.
I might add at this point that certain steps have already been taken (these were announced last week) to prepare for petrol rationing in case it is needed. These steps include the printing of coupons and forms, the acquiring of accommodation

229
for rationing staff and the posting of advance parties to the regional offices where rationing would be administered. The mounting of a rationing scheme is no small undertaking, and the issue of coupons would necessarily occupy some weeks. The steps that are being taken now do not mean that rationing is inevitable or is even contemplated at the present time. They are simply sensible precautions which the Government would be imprudent to neglect, so that, if the need arises, there should be no undue delay.
My Lords, the Bill makes only temporary provision for control. The Government believe that if control were required, it should be for only a short period, to tide over passing difficulties. They are not seeking continuing powers. The Bill itself sets a term to the duration of the powers which it gives. It is timed to expire on June 30, 1968. This is contained in Clause 9(1). It should not be inferred from this that any restrictions that might prove necessary could be expected to last as long as that. Petrol rationing, for example, if it were required at all, might well be over by the end of the year. But some preparations will still need to be made well before the end of the year against the possibility of a prolongation into 1968, and the Bill must cover such a contingency. For this reason it is not possible to set an earlier term to the Bill. The Government hope that they will not have to exercise the powers in the Bill: if they do have to, they will certainly not wish to do so for a moment longer than is necessary.
The powers of control which the Government seek in this Bill are admittedly unusual, but I think the justification must rest on the unusual situation which has arisen and on the uncertainty as to how it will develop. Given this uncertainty and the need for quick action should the situation develop unfavourably, the Government believe that it is not only desirable but essential that they should be accorded these powers. They may never be used. If they were it would be for only a limited time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
4.20 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, for having introduced and explained
230
this Bill. I am sure that every noble Lord is very glad to know that it is only an enabling Bill. We all deplore the circumstances which have given rise to the necessity for a Bill of this nature, but I think the Government are right in taking the necessary precautions and, if I may say so, in taking them in this manner. At the outset, I should like to congratulate not only the Government but also the oil companies and those others who are deeply involved in this matter for having kept the supply of oils plentiful to date. To the average consumer there has been little difference from the status quo before all the trouble in the Middle East occurred. Yet I cannot help but believe that substantial headaches were given to the people trying to keep these supplies going.
I would confine my remarks to asking the noble Lord some questions, so that he may be able to amplify and clarify a little more the circumstances which surround this Bill. The first thing I have in mind is what exactly the petroleum situation is like. I notice that the noble Lord was hesitant to be drawn on this subject too much, and I appreciate his reasons; but would he be able to go so far at least as to tell us whether at the moment our average weekly consumption of fuels is as great or greater than the average import of fuels? In other words, are we importing sufficient fuels to keep ourselves going or are we having to live to a certain extent on our reserves? I should be glad to know how large these reserves are. I have heard that it is three weeks' supply. Is this so or do the reserves of fuel last longer?
Does the noble Lord, at this time, visualise rationing becoming a reality? If we go on as we are, with the same imports and consumption, is it likely that eventually petrol will be rationed? Or is the object of this Bill merely to take precautions in case the import situation gets worse than it is at the moment? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell the House whether the oil companies at the moment have a free rein to import oil from anywhere, even from areas where previously they may have encountered currency restrictions, in order to meet the demands of the market. If there is a shortage of imports, is this because oil is not available, or because tankers are not available, or because of

231
currency restrictions which prevent either the purchasing of oil or the hiring of tankers?
All the talk is about petrol rationing. This is described as the Control of Liquid Fuel Bill, but what are the Government's intentions about other fuel? Do they propose to ration, if necessary, diesel fuel, central heating oil or tractor vaporising oil, or is this to be confined to petrol rationing and the motorist? If so, it could well be argued that it would be more equitable if all liquid fuel users were subject to restrictions, and not motorists only. It would seem illogical for a man to be prevented from using his car and yet be allowed to use his central heating full blast. And how do the Government intend to prevent lorry and tractor petrol from finding its way into private cars? Do they intend to resort to the previous method of tinting petrol with a red dye—and have they any arrangements to ensure that this is going to be more successful than it was before? I rather fancy that the noble Lord would prefer to "keep mum" about some of these questions, on the basis that the less said the better, for fear of scaring the public and possibly giving too much information to the suppliers, but I deliberately ask the noble Lord these questions because I think it is right that we should know what is in the Government's mind and that we should not be kept too much in the dark.
Again, can the noble Lord say whether such gases as propane and butane, normally known as Calor gas, though I realise that this is a trade name, are to be rationed? Indeed, are they covered by this Bill? These are liquid fuels when in containers at a high pressure and low temperature, and when released to the air they are vaporised and become gases.
The noble Lord said that at the time of Suez it was necessary to take on 1,800 extra staff and that if petrol rationing is brought in that figure would become 2,500. I appreciate that he may not be able to give too many details, but could he say where it intended to recruit the extra 2,500—from other Ministries? If so, what are these Ministries going to do without them? If they have enough staff, to spare, why have they so many now? And if they are not coming from other Ministries, where are they to come from?
232
It is all very fine to say that we want extra people, but we do not get them, as it were, out of a hat. In the Government's preparation for rationing, what period of time do they anticipate will elapse between the announcement that fuel will be rationed and rationing coming into force? Your Lordships know that whenever there is a change in price this normally happens "as from midnight". I assume that rationing would not come in with quite such devastating alacrity; but if it is going to be 12 days or three weeks, is there not the problem that people will make a run on stocks and hoard their fuel? I cannot help but believe that rationing would be desperately inconvenient, wildly time-wasting, very frustrating, probably in some ways inexorable, and certainly very expensive. I wonder whether the Government have discarded entirely the possibility of curtailing demand, should that be necessary, by increasing price.
I hope that the provisions of this Bill will never have to be used and that we can manage without rationing. I think the Government are entirely right and prudent to bring it in and take the necessary precautions. They certainly have my sympathy, because I do not think that it would be easy, popular or cheap. At least I am sure that those responsible for administering it will do so with as much humanity and understanding as possible. I stress the word "understanding" because I recall that at the time of the Suez petrol-rationing one farmer filling in his petrol claim form was asked what means of locomotion he had. He said "A tractor and a stallion". He was granted an allowance of two gallons for the tractor and ten gallons for the stallion. I am sure that we have learned from our mistakes in the past. Though I hope that the provisions of this Bill will never come into operation, I, for one, wish it well.
4.29 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I say from these Benches that I hope that we shall never have to use the provisions of this Bill, but I think the Government are wise to bring it in. May I ask two points on administration? I assume, in regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about where the extra people would be recruited, that they would probably be retired civil servants

233
or people in that category. But will the Minister say whether this is to be a regional organisation, and will he bear in mind the need to avoid concentrating civil servants in new centres, especially in the South of England, where there is already far too much congestion in London and the surrounding districts? Secondly, can the noble Lord say anything in regard to what was reported this morning; namely, that the Algerians are holding up supplies of liquid gas to this country? Because this could have a bad effect in causing a greater burden on other fuels, such as oil. With those few words, I welcome the Bill.
4.31 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, it was not my intention, when I entered the House, to engage in this debate, but listening to the statements that have been made it occurred to me that perhaps on a Second Reading debate such as this it would be reasonable to raise the general question of our complete dependence, as it is becoming more and more, on others in regard to fuel supplies. This is the second, I will not say crisis, but difficulty in regard to oil supplies that we have encountered in recent years. On each occasion it has shown the vulnerability of this country to such dependence. We are now in the position of having, in substance, a large supply of our necessary fuel dependent upon what are, at the moment at least, manifestly unfriendly Powers, and Powers which at any time might use our vulnerability as a political weapon, to further some nationist aims, or something of that kind. It sems to me that common sense requires a review of our fuel policy, so that we may see whether there are any agencies open to us which would render that dependence and vulnerability considerably less.
It is not many years since, not quite at the behest, but under the influence, of the then Government, the electricity supply industry decided for the first time to embark upon a number of power stations which were to burn oil. I may say quite definitely that the engineers of the electricity supply industry were at that time totally opposed to the use of oil in the generation of electricity. They were of the opinion that the technical problems were greater than the continuance of reliance upon coal. At that time nuclear
234
power had scarcely been thought of as a really practicable measure of meeting the electricity needs of this country. Consequently, we in the supply industry—I was then the chairman—set about spending money converting from coal to oil, stations that were in the process of building, and making some stations capable of running on both. To the best of my recollection, the capital cost of doing that was some £16 million. Had the supply industry's own technical officials been allowed to pursue their way, it would have meant that we could have reduced that capital payment by the use of coal.
I am not oblivious to the fact that there have been periods in the history of the coal industry when it appeared that their ability to meet the needs of the electricity-generating industry were inadequate; but they were based upon what proved to be wrong estimates, not, I am glad to say, of the officials of the supply industry, but of those of the then Coal Board. No-one has been more prominent than the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, in his advocacy that for an economic, viable policy of coal production we need a greater output of coal. Time and time again he has emphasised this, almost to the point, one might say, where he has been oblivious to the broad policy of the Government of the day.
I welcome the statement which, according to The Times, is due to be made to-day by the Minister of Fuel and Power, in which, apparently, he is to urge the extended use of coal. But I want to put in a plea for consideration of nuclear power as a fuel. It is true that coal has been our staple commodity in the electricity supply industry for the generation of electricity, but I have never been very happy at the thought of men having to work underground in conditions which at best cannot rival those of good industrial practice on the surface, which I think is socially most undesirable. That may appear a contradiction of what I said a few minutes ago about the use of coal; but if one gives the matter consideration, it is not.
Nuclear power is unquestionably entering an era when it can equal, if not outdistance, the efficiency of any other kind of fuel for the generation of electricity. There is no question at all in my mind about that. I was chairman at the time the decision was made to experiment

235
with nuclear power stations, and I was prominent in advocacy of embarking on that experiment. It has now passed the stage of experiment, and it would mean that if we were to extend considerably, as it could be extended, the use of nuclear power, we should find our sources of supply far more assured than the supplies of oil are to-day. The major supplies, so far as my recollection goes, were to be obtained from the Commonwealth. We are hardly likely to be at variance, certainly to the point of war, with the Commonwealth, although I am not sure about other parts of the world. So I regret, although I well understand, that this limited but, in the circumstances, necessary, Bill does not deal with the major problem of our continued reliance on imported fuel.
4.38 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, in widening somewhat the scope of this debate. It seems to me essential that we should not allow this matter to pass without saying what a lamentable thing it is that for the second time in ten years our country should have to consider the necessity to ration petrol in peace time. To my mind it is almost incredible. Of course, I warmly support the Bill. I support, also, the questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I shall look forward to hearing the answers which the Minister will give.
I wish to say, however, that the present situation would seem to be intolerable from the point of view of the whole of Europe. Here is the Suez Canal, a major thoroughfare of essential importance to world trade, which is controlled by one Power—and I recall that the thoroughfare was shut before the Israelis got there. Now that the Israelis have reached the Canal, it is obviously impossible for the normal transit procedures to work, and therefore it is clearly essential that the Israelis should be persuaded to leave. But even when they leave, the Canal will remain in the hands of a Power which seems to be extremely unfriendly, which is obtaining a great many more arms from Russia with a view to continuing the war, and on which we apparently cannot rely for reasonable treatment of our commerce.
236
In these circumstances, I think that every consideration ought to be given to providing an alternative method of transit. We can go round the Cape of Good Hope, but it is a very long journey, and this puts our trade at a great disadvantage. We should certainly suffer great disadvantages East of Suez, in India and other countries, as compared with Japan and the United States, if we have to get there all the way round the Cape of Good Hope. Therefore, I feel that consideration ought to be given to other possibilities.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one possibility: that is that the Port of Eilat, which will take 200,000-ton ships, should be used as the end of a pipe-line to a port on the Mediterranean—one is already being built by the Israelis—and that special transits should be arranged by pipe-line and road for liquid fuels and also for goods to be trans-shipped. They would be able to be carried in ships much larger than can go, fully loaded, through the Suez Canal. And, if the Israelis know their business, I am sure they would see that that system does not cost more than going through the Suez Canal itself.
I should have thought that a little competition in these matters would be no had thing. There would be certain corollaries. One would be that the Gulf of Tiran should definitely be kept open, and I think that means kept open by the Israelis, because I do not see how anybody can have very much confidence in the United Nations. The second would be that somehow the Israelis must be got to go away from the Canal. But if they were to receive some help with a pipe-line and roads, perhaps they would be less unwilling to consider that.
Something will have to be done also to produce a better state of peace between the Arab countries and Israel. I should like to think that in the long run some sort of new deal for the North African countries as a whole will be considered. On the other side of the deal I personally should like to see O.E.C.D. as a whole, so that 0.E.C.D. would fulfil the godparent role, which the Americans and the Canadians fulfilled in relation to Europe after World War II. My Lords, these are vague ideas, but I put them forward simply because it is intolerable

237
that we should be in this position in times of peace, and I think the disadvantages to our commerce, our economy, and the standard of living of our people go very far beyond the question of liquid fuels alone.
4.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all, I should like to thank noble Lords for welcoming the Bill, and I particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for giving me advance notice of some of the questions he has asked. That I am unable to answer them is not just, except in respect of one or two, a matter of the normal Government caution which Oppositions so rightly seek to dent, but is due to the fact that the Bill is rather a hypothetical Bill. Therefore, I shall not be able to satisfy him on all the points he has raised.
In particular, I am afraid that I cannot say very much about the average weekly or monthly import of fuel, or the equivalent consumption. I will go into this matter a little further and see what the particular difficulties are in giving this information. But, of course, I do not think it would help him at the moment. The situation is one that is changing. Obviously, the initial dislocation of supplies—and this may go some way to answer his question—has led to a reduction of imports temporarily, and therefore I think stocks are bound to have gone down. The question is really how far the further measures that have been taken, and what has been done by the oil companies—and I share with him appreciation of the hard work they are putting into it—will restore the situation. I am afraid, therefore, it would be quite misleading to pick a particular group of figures—say, for last week—of current arrivals and consumption, unless we look at the forward position. Although I share his interest, and it is a reasonable question to ask, I believe any answer is bound to be misleading. Therefore I think it is better not to go further than the comments I have already given.
This is the point where he asked me whether I thought rationing was really going to take place. I have no idea. The Government do not know. We are still hoping that it will be possible to
238
avoid it. Although it is natural that people instinctively want to know the Government's opinion on this question, I must emphasise that this is essentially a precautionary measure. When I say that, I am not concealing a hidden intention, or hidden belief, on the part of the Government that rationing is going to come about. We simply do not know; and we think there are reasonable chances, good chances—who can judge at the moment?—of avoiding rationing.
In this context the noble Earl asked whether there were any currency restrictions for oil or for hiring tankers. The answer is, No. There are no such restrictions, and the situation continues as in the past. Certainly, there is no proposal or intention at the moment to introduce rationing as an aid to the balance of payments. The balance-of-payments situation may have taken a small dent in the last few weeks, partly because of loss of confidence and partly because certain extra costs are being imposed, but we do not face any crisis at the moment, or any great oil supply crisis. It is essentially a transport problem. Therefore, here again it is a hypothetical question—or, rather, the noble Earl's question is not hypothetical, but observations on future events on the balance-of-payments side would be very hypothetical indeed, and there are no restrictions at the moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also asked about rationing of diesel fuel, central heating, T.V.O., et cetera. The Minister is taking power under this Bill to control the supply, acquisition and consumption of any or all liquid fuel; and this would cover not only motor fuel rationing, but also restrictions on other fuels used for central heating, and so on. But whether rationing or other restrictions may be needed will depend on the course that is to be followed; and here again we have taken no decisions. We are not proposing to ration, anyway. When I say that we are not proposing to ration anyway, I mean that we are merely taking certain steps. Therefore, I think it is difficult to answer this question.
The noble Earl referred again to the problem of tractors and lorries, and whether red dye would be used. There is certainly no intention to use red dye. Red dye was not used when petrol was

239
rationed during the Suez crisis. As to the noble Earl's reference to his friend's stallion, I can only conclude that the regional office must have thought that "Stallion" was the name of a motor car. I am quite sure that, although mistakes will be made, once again the petrol rationers will do their utmost to conduct the petrol rationing in as sensible a way as possible. Obviously, none of us wants it. It poses bureaucratic value judgments in certain respects which are extremely difficult and which Governments and civil servants, I am quite sure, would much prefer not to have to deal with.
Again, I was asked about butane and propane. My recollection is that Calor gas was not rationed even during the war—I am not quite certain about that. But, of course, it is in much greater use to-day. Here, again, the Government are taking powers to cover the matter, but it would be too early for me to answer that question. These are questions of a kind which it is extremely natural to ask, but it is very difficult to answer them when the Government have not in fact decided to do anything; and I apologise to the noble Earl. I think they are very reasonable questions.
Then he came to the question of the staff that will be required. I mentioned 2,500, and both he and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to this matter. Indeed, the questions put by both noble Lords were ones that I myself asked: if we can find 2,500, just like that, does this not suggest that Government offices have got a "bit of fat"? The answer is, No. The answer is that in fact there are certain people who will obviously have to work a good deal harder—those who are setting up the machinery—but other work will just suffer, and there may be certain people who are engaged in certain activities (and I prefer not to specify them at the moment) which will just have to be dropped for the time being. There are certain things which, although in themselves, desirable, we can afford, in a difficulty of this nature, to stop for the period.
On the particular point as to where they will be, I take the noble Earl's point that he hopes—and very properly—that they will not all be stuck in London. The answer is that about a quarter will be in London. I should have thought
240
that if this were going to be a permanent scheme (which I am sure it will not be) this is one of the type of headquarters that one would like to see situated somewhere other than in London.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, does one gather from that remark that 60,000 people in London are going to be engaged in this?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord's calculations are not quite accurate; the figure should be 6,000.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it is 600.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, my Lords: that is quite right. If, in fact, it were a quarter, the figure would be about 650. The noble Earl, I fear, is causing a good deal of difficulty with these figures! London itself contains a pretty sizable part of the population of this country, but many of them will be concerned in regional offices. I think I have now answered that point. I shall probably return in a moment to the noble Lord's point about Algerian oil.
The noble Earl then asked what the time lag will be; whether it will be a day or a week. Inevitably it will be some weeks after the announcement of this scheme, because the petrol coupon books will have to be applied for and issued. Precisely how long I do not know, but people will get notice. I appreciate the noble Earl's concern that presumably people might start hoarding. The one thing we all wish to avoid is hoarding, but I suppose there will always be a few selfish people. However, the issuing through post offices and local taxation offices of petrol coupons and ration books for more than 10 million private cars cannot be done more quickly than within a few weeks. Again, it will be a very much bigger operation than during the Suez crisis.
The noble Earl asked whether the Government had discarded the idea of decreasing demand by increasing prices. To try to obtain any appreciable reduction in petrol consumption would call for a really swingeing increase, and this would lead to a great deal of unfairness. I always think it is worth while looking at the market method of dealing with this sort of situation, but I cannot believe that

241
the noble Earl and the Party to which he belongs would contemplate this for a moment; and I am sure it would be unacceptable to the public. There is always, of course, the possibility—and again I should not like to suggest it—that there might be price increases. I think that at the time of the Suez crisis there was a special tax of something like a shilling which the Chancellor put on in order to recoup the revenue that he lost. But it is certainly not intended, if rationing should come about, to introduce it by the purse.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked about Algerian liquid gas. I am sorry to say this has been stopped right from the beginning. There have been some rather conflicting reports in the Press about it, and there has been a new incident on top of the earlier one.
I have done my best to answer both the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Finally, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I must say that they improved the shining hour by taking the opportunity to raise matters of great importance, which I am not proposing to answer. Anything that the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, may say on fuel or electricity supply or coal is of great importance, and of great interest to the House, because there is nobody who knows more about those things; and I do not doubt that in the past his words of wisdom have been perhaps more neglected than they should have been. But I do not think I ought to go further into it on this particular Bill. Indeed I had in mind Standing Order No. 26, which I did not attempt to invoke, although the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, nearly stimulated me into doing so, in relation to relevance, but one could say that although it did not bear directly on this particular Bill, none the less it is of great interest.
However, I do not expect any of your Lordships will expect me to do more than say that I listened with the greatest interest, and clearly the question of alternative supplies and the vulnerability of our position in this matter is one that Governments have constantly considered. I ought just to say (and in doing so perhaps I am myself going out of Order) that there are two sides to this question.
242
Those people who are unable to supply their oil will be in pretty serious trouble also.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the reception you have given to this Bill, and I am glad it is going through, although I hope that its provisions will never be put into effect.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL
Bill read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1967
4.59 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, these Regulations are supplementary to the Material Development Regulations 1967 which define "material development" for the purposes of the Land Commission Act. The definition is needed for the acquisition of land under Part II of the Act, since the Commission's power to acquire land operates only where land is suitable, in their opinion, for material development. It is also necessary for the assessment of the levy under Part III of the Act, since in the assessment of current use value it has to be assumed that planning permission would be granted only for development which does not constitute material development. The Regulations are due to come into force on August 1. They make two amendments to the definition in the main Regulations of development which is not material development. The effect of both these amendments is in favour of the subject; they reduce liability to betterment levy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Material Development (No. 2) Regulations 1967 be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1967
5.0 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Material Development (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1967 be approved. These Scottish Regulations are very similar to the regulations just moved by my noble friend Lord Kennet. They in fact cover exactly the same ground. In addition, we are taking the opportunity in Regulation 2(b) and (c) to correct minor slips in the original regulations by removing certain brackets which were printed there by error. This adjustment has of course no effect on the substance of the regulations. Apart from that the only differences between the two sets of regulations are those arising from the customary differences of style in our two countries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Material Development (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (PUBLIC PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1967
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on June 28, be approved.
These draft regulations correspond substantially to the Public Protection and the Casualty Services Regulations for England and Wales, which were approved by your Lordships on July 14. Like them, they are needed to implement the reorganisation of local authority civil defence, to which reference was made in debating in this House on March 23 last a Motion by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie.
A new duty which these regulations would lay on local authorities is that of training members of their staffs in civil defence control duties. There would be no obligation on individual local authority employees to undertake training in these duties: staff participation in the arrangements would therefore be voluntary, and, on this understanding, N.A.L.G.O. (Scottish District) have raised no objection on behalf of their members.
244
Otherwise the draft regulations follow generally the existing regulations, made in 1949, which they would revoke. They do not deal with the war-time ambulance services which will be covered for England and Wales by the Casualty Services Regulations to be made by the Minister of Health. The reason for this is that, in Scotland, the local authorities have no responsibility, in peace or in war, for the ambulance services: the ambulance auxiliary corps in Scotland is part of the National Health Service Reserve and is administered by the Scottish Ambulance Service, which is the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State.
One effect of the revocation of the 1949 Regulations would be to transfer from the police authorities to county councils and the town councils of large burghs the responsibility for functions hitherto discharged through the warden section of the Civil Defence Corps, a duty which the police inherited because of their experience in organising the warden service in the last war. In its new role, the Corps will not have specialist sections, and its organisation and training for the discharge of its warden-type duties, as well as for its other tasks, will become the concern of the local authority.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the voluntary aid societies—the St. Andrew's Ambulance Association and the Scottish Branch of the British Red Cross—for their ready agreement to co-operate with the local authorities in the planning of the war-time first aid service; and to the local authority associations, through their representatives on the standing local authority civil defence co-ordinating committee, for their assistance in the drafting of these regulations and other measures required to implement the reorganisation of local authority civil defence to meet current needs. It is proposed to bring the regulations into operation on September 1. I hope the House will have no difficulty in approving them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on June 28, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (AMENDMENT OF CERTIFIED AMOUNT) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1967
5.7 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft British Railways Board (Amendment of Certified Amount) (Scotland) Order 1967, laid before the House on July 5, 1967, be approved. The British Railways Board are not subject to normal valuation and rating, but make annual contributions in lieu of rates. These contributions are paid to the Secretary of State and distributed by him among the rating authorities in accordance with a statutory formula.
The Board's contribution each year is calculated by applying to a "standard amount" statutory adjustment factors, or multipliers, which take account of changes in the general level of rates in Scotland and in the activities of the Board, measured by reference to numbers of passenger journeys and freight tons carried. The standard amount is, therefore, a basic element in the calculation of the Board's annual contribution and it is, in a sense, analogous to a rateable value. As a result of the general revaluation of property in Scotland last year, the average rate poundage dropped by about 2s. 5d., and if the standard amount is not revised the effect of the rate adjustment factor would be to reduce the Board's contribution in lieu of rates for the current year by about £23,000.
The effect of this Order, which amends a figure from which the Board's standard amount is derived, will be that the amount payable by the Board in lieu of rates for 1967–68 will be approximately the same as the amount paid for 1966–67; that is, about £211,000. In proposing that the Board should be given a rates standstill for the current year, rather than that the standard amount should be increased in line with the general increase in valuations, the Secretary of State has taken into account the following considerations.
First, following on the 1961 revaluation in Scotland the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962 provided that the standard amount for 1962–63 and subsequent years should
246
be such as to secure that the amount payable in lieu of rates for 1962–63 was as nearly as possible the same as for 1961–62. Secondly, following the 1963 revaluation in England and Wales, the Minister of Housing and Local Government increased the standard amount for the Railways Board in England and Wales by less than the general increase in valuations, and this reduced the amount payable in lieu of rates for 1964–65 and subsequent years on this side of the Border. Thirdly, in the past five years of continuing operating deficit there has been a further major contraction of the whole of British Railways, which in Scotland has halved the number of stations and marshalling yards and reduced by a quarter the number of route miles open to traffic. Fourthly, while the annual value of the average rate multiplier over the last five years has increased from 1·297 to 11·543, the activity multiplier has had only a marginal effect, declining only from 0·984 to 0·973, despite the marked contraction in railway operations, and the payments in lieu of rates by the Board in fact increased in the period from £181,000 to £211,000.
The British Railways Board and the Scottish local authority associations have been consulted about the Order. The Railways Board and the Association of County Councils in Scotland have accepted its terms: no comments have been received from the Counties of Cities Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs. Taking all this into account, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it would be reasonable to give the Board a standstill in their rate payments in Scotland in 1967–68. How payments will move in Scotland in subsequent years will depend, of course, on the interaction of the rising average rate poundage factor and the declining activity factor, but a gradual increase seems likely. I commend the Draft Order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Draft British Railways Board (Amendment of Certified Amount) (Scotland) Order 1967, laid before the House on 5th July, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, your Lordships will know that I personally have no connections with Scotland, except that a noble relative of mine invented the Goschen formula. All the same, I should like to thank the noble

247
Lord, Lord Hughes, for the very clear way in which he has dealt with the two Regulations and one Order, and I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House wish them well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.