Lords Sitting of 19 June 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 Worcester.

AIRCRAFT NOISE: EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOM
2.35 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: 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 are aware that the French Air Force paid £145,000 in compensation last year to victims of sonic boom caused by aircraft breaking the sound barrier; whether they have reliable information as to the effect on health and property of sonic boom at various altitudes of various designs of aircraft; and whether they are taking steps to restrict and reduce this nuisance in Britain.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, our own information indicates that the figure for the French Air Force quoted by the noble Lord is substantially correct. There is no evidence, either from research carried out in the United Kingdom or from the study of the results of tests held in the United States of America, of damage to health from sonic bangs. Damage to buildings varies with the intensity of the bang, but soundly constructed buildings are not affected by bangs of the kind which a supersonic transport aircraft may be expected to make.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, are there no cases where people have been deafened as a result of sonic boom?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, I am not aware of any such case.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, could the Minister tell me whether it is
1160
not the case that in the hands of responsible operators the Concord civil aircraft, which is, after all, the aircraft most concerned in this question, would only in the most exceptional circumstances be used at supersonic speeds over areas of heavy population?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, I think it is fair to say that for operational reasons the aircraft would not reach supersonic speed until at least 100 miles away from the take-off point.

ZAMBIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER DESIGNATE
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the present position regarding the status of Mr. Simbule, High Commissioner-designate for Zambia.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as was stated by my honourable friend in another place on May 9, on receipt of Press reports of Mr. Simbule's remarks in Dar es Salaam Her Majesty's Government sought clarification from the Zambian Government. We are still in communication with the Zambian Government but it is hoped that it will be possible to make a further statement in the near future.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is it not unprecedented that someone in Mr. Simbule's position should make remarks about the country to which he is to be accredited?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I take the first part of the question, I think it would certainly be true to say that the remarks were unprecedented. I think also, however, we should be well advised to keep them in proportion, and there is a case for saying that we should treat them more with sorrow than with anger.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, that one accepts; but is it not the case that since Mr. Simbule made these remarks about this country they have been emphasised and rubbed in by his own Foreign Secretary, Mr. Kapwepwe? Will

1161
the noble Lord recognise that there are a great many people in this country, whatever their political views may be, who regard it as wholly unacceptable that someone in this position should make remarks about this country and about this Government and still expect to receive high diplomatic status?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree that the remarks were unfortunate, and they have been strongly deprecated by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Zambia. What further action is to be taken? Mr. Simbule has not been recognised as yet, as is known, and further action has yet to be decided.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us, when Her Majesty's Government sought clarification, what clarification they got?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we were informed that the remarks were made in jest and that Mr. Simbule himself had a high regard, strangely enough, for this country. What he has subsequently said bears out the interpretation that he said what he said, but he did not really mean what he said.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Zambia is not under great strain as a result of the economic sanctions imposed on Rhodesia, and whether it is not much more important to retain good relations with Zambia in the Commonwealth than to pay too much attention to remarks of this kind?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what the noble Lord says bears out my appeal that a matter of this kind should be kept in proportion. I must say that I myself feel it is a pity that someone setting out to represent a country in the United Kingdom should start off with remarks of this kind, especially when, after all, what they are really complaining about is that this bulldog is not prepared to bite simply because they tell us to do so.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if Mr. Simbule makes remarks like this in jest, what sort of remarks is he likely to make when he is serious?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no doubt if Mr. Simbule remains here much longer
1162
and hears the sophisticated comments made in your Lordships' House he will be able to adjust his own manner of speaking accordingly.

MIDDLE EAST REFUGEES
2.41 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: 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 can make a further statement on the refugee problem in the Middle East.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been deeply concerned about the new refugee problem caused by the war in the Middle East. We estimate that more than 100,000 refugees have already crossed from West Jordan to the East bank. Our latest reports, however, indicate that movement of refugees may be diminishing. Her Majesty's Government have made finance available to allow emergency supplies to be sent from Government stocks in Cyprus. They have also offered an additional contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and have now informed the Jordan Government that they will make available £500,000 for expenditure on urgent rehabilitation and reconstruction projects to be agreed between the two Governments. Other Governments and various voluntary agencies are also offering assistance. The Government of Israel and UNRWA have entered into an agreement under which the Agency can continue its work in Israeli-occupied territory.
2.43 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the resolution unanimously passed by the Security Council at its meeting last Wednesday, has my noble friend any information as to what action has been taken by the Government of Israel to safeguard the welfare and security of the one million refugees who formerly inhabited the West bank of the Jordan and the Gaza Strip, and to facilitate the return of those who fled from both these areas which are now occupied by Israeli troops?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in the light of the resolution referred to by my noble friend, we were of course disturbed by Press reports which seemed to suggest that there might be pressure on the Arab population to leave Israeli-occupied territories. But we now have the assurance of the Israeli Government that these reports were exaggerated, and that the Arab population have been assured of their safety if they choose to stay, or indeed if those who left choose to return. We have also heard that as a result of this statement there has been the beginning of a return movement to the West bank by some of those people who originally fled the area. I can assure my noble friend, however, that we have made clear to the Israeli Government our concern for the welfare of the Arab population of Israeli-occupied territories, and indeed our anxiety which is basic to this whole issue, that a new refugee problem should not be super-imposed upon the existing one.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, are we to understand from what my noble friend has said that there is no truth in the statement which appeared in the Press this morning, that Arabs had been forcibly compelled to leave their homes in Jerusalem?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we certainly have no evidence to support such an allegation. The original suggestions were that the Israeli authorities had placed no obstacle in the way of such movement, and that some people may have interpreted this as being a form of subtle pressure on people to leave. We certainly have no evidence to support an allegation that they are being forcibly removed.

ADEN
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a Statement on Aden. Much of this Statement will be contained in a speech which will be made shortly in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. In view of this, we are seeking to time that Statement at approximately quarter past four his afternoon.
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it is with much pleasure that I rise to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Oakshott, the Lord Champion and the Lord St. Helens be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
2.48 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Viscount Colville of Culross, the Lord Willis, the Lord Byers and the Lord Caccia be appointed members of the Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order to ask any questions about this Motion. What I should like to ask is this. I think we shall probably all welcome the addition of four new members to the Procedure Committee. As I understand this development, it is in some degree due to the debates that there have been over the past years and the suggestion that some new life should be given to the Procedure Committee.
One of the last things that I desire is to be in any way personal in relation to the people who have been chosen, but, if I may put it in this way, it seems to me that it is really what I would call an Establishment choice: that is to say, there is one Labour Member, one Conservative Member, one Liberal Member and one Cross-Bencher. What could be fairer than that! But I recall that in the debates—I am not sure that it was not even the noble Earl the Leader of the House who said it—it was thought

1165
that it would be a good thing for the Procedure Committee if new blood, which might be some rebels and definitely young, and probably Back-Bench, were introduced. I am not clear that all of the noble Lords whose names are on the Order Paper perhaps fulfil that role, at any rate in relation to being rebels. I think that is a pity, and while I certainly should not wish to oppose any of the names shown, I should like to ask whether this is a pattern, or whether, indeed, these are to be the noble Lords who will go on virtually for ever, as is the usual practice with whose who are chosen for the Procedure Committee. If that is the case, I think it is a pity.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether it is I or the Lord Chairman who should say a word in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I feel that he is unnecessarily depressed as a result of his initiative. I think that here we have found four outstanding Members of the House who will add a great deal to the life of this Committee. As we owe it to the noble Earl, we ought to be grateful to him in respect of his rather acid comments. He claims that these gentlemen will not be sufficiently rebellious. I am not quite sure how you select rebellious members of a Select Committee. There are professional rebels here, I suppose, but we should not necessarily think that they would be the most satisfactory people to choose as members of the Procedure Committee. We have been able to choose fresh blood.
We shall have these noble Lords with us for a great many years. We have been asked to choose young members. Well, "youth" is a relative term in this House. We are here in an ascending scale, and no one will claim that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, or the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is old. The other members are the noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Caccia. It seems only yesterday that Lord Byers was hurdling for Oxford, and that Lord Caccia was playing Rugby football for the same university; so I assume that they are still very vigorous men. Therefore, taking it all round, I think the noble Lord can set his mind at rest.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am not at all sure that it would be wise of your Lordships' House to choose revolutionary Members to serve on your Lordships' Committees. The place for revolution is in this Chamber itself. When your Lordships send business to a Committee, you want to have some assurance that it will be carried out in accordance with the ancient precedents, and that those precedents will not be varied unnecessarily. I can imagine that in Committees other than the Procedure Committee to appoint extremely rebellious members might overturn all the normal processes of the business which comes before your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, after all it would be only four out of 28 members. I did ask a question, and I should like to have it answered.
A NOBLE LORD: You must ask leave.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will feel that, as we are discussing a Report on Procedure, we ought to be extremely careful about following the procedure. I am not sure that there is any procedure of the House which enables the noble Earl to speak again. By permission, of course, he can do anything.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I accept that, and I am sorry that I have offended. But may I, by your leave, say this? I asked a question which has not been answered. The question was whether these latest members of the Procedure Committee will expect that they are probably on the Committee for life, or whether the probability is that from time to time there may be change.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, this is a matter for the Lord Chairman, but I do not think that even the Lord Chairman could give an assurance about the tenure of these gentlemen. I feel sure that they will all last a great deal longer as members of the Committee than I shall last as Leader of the House; but I can say no more than that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
2.54 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fifth Report from the Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. UNSTARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee recommend that in future unstarred questions should be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, e.g. "[Subject]. Question asked by the Lord A; and [after debate] answered by the Lord B."
2. ADVANCEMENT OF STARRED QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
The Committee considered whether the provisions of Standing Order 37 (Postponement and advancement of motions) should continue to apply to starred questions. They recommend that the Standing Order be amended so as to exclude starred questions from its provisions. This will enable them to be advanced without a Business of the House motion being agreed to, subject to a vacancy existing on the Order Paper.
3. THE ORDER PAPER
(i) Italic Notes
The Committee considered the subject of the italic notes which give advance notice of business not yet ripe to be put down on the Order Paper.
The Committee do not recommend any change in the form in which these notes at present appear. The Committee are of opinion that these notes are the responsibility of the Peer who puts them down, that is, normally, the Peer in charge of the business to which they refer.
(ii) "Orders of the Day"
The Committee considered the question whether it was necessary to preserve any longer the distinction between "Orders of the Day" and Notices. At present, Public Bills can only be set down by Order of the Day, whereas most other business can be set down by simple notice. Orders of the Day are less flexible than Notices (for example they cannot be altered during a recess) and the distinction no longer has, in the opinion of the Committee, sufficient reality to balance its inconvenience. The Committee therefore recommend that, in general, the House should no longer use Orders of the Day, and that in future all legislative business should be set down by Notice. There may still be occasions on which a genuine decision of the House is taken about a particular item of business; on such occasions Orders of the Day would still be used.
(iii) Interpretation of Standing Order 35(5) "Convenience of the House"
Standing Order 35(5) provides that "On all sitting days except Wednesdays … the precedence of notices and orders relating to
1168
Public Bills and Measures may, if the convenience of the House so requires, be varied by order of the House".
The Committee considered the interpretation of the phrase "convenience of the House" and recommend that in the application of Standing Order 35(5) the "Private Bill" procedure set out on pp. 40–41 of the Companion may be extended to Public Bills and Measures; that is to say, that such Bills and Measures may be advanced in the Order Paper without consultation provide that they are not likely to be debated; but that if a debate arises on any such Bill or Measure so advanced, it shall be open to any Lord to move without notice that the debate be adjourned till later in the day or to another day.
4. LEAVE OF ABSENCE
The Committee considered the provisions of Standing Order No. 21, which require the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of a new Parliament to send letters about leave of absence to all Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons, irrespective of their record of attendance in the preceding session. The Committee recommend that the procedure at the beginning of a Parliament should be the same as that followed at the beginning of subsequent sessions, namely that letters should only be sent to those Lords who have not attended any sitting of the House (other than for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) in the previous session.
The Committee recommend that the Standing Order be amended accordingly.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in moving that this Report be agreed to, perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two brief comments on the Report of the Procedure Committee. First of all, I would mention item 2 in the Report, "Advancement of Starred Questions on the Order Paper". If this recommendation is agreed to by the House it will require an amendment of Standing Order 37, which will exclude Starred Questions from its provisions. This amendment will be moved as soon as possible. Item 3 in the Report relates to the Order Paper. If the Committee's recommendation in sub-paragraph (ii), "Order of the Day", is accepted, a few amendments will have to be made to Standing Orders and a large number of changes will have to be made in the form of Minute entries. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that it would be convenient if this change were not made immediately but were to come into effect at the beginning of the next Session.
The Committee also considered a suggestion made by a number of Peers to install some form of timing clock in the Chamber to enable Peers to see for themselves for how long they were speaking.

1169
The Committee were of opinion that this suggestion should not be accepted as it runs counter to a recent decision of the House when it agreed in May, 1966, to the recommendation of the Procedure Committee against the employment of mechanical devices as a means of limiting the length of speeches. Perhaps I might remind the House that this recommendation went on to say that the Committee saw no practicable way of shortening speeches except by constant exhortation and reminders of the advantages of brevity.
Item 4 of the Report relates to leave of absence. The effect of this amendment, if approved by your Lordships, will be to bring procedure at the beginning of a new Parliament into line with that followed at the beginning of a new Session. Leave of absence letters at the beginning of a new Parliament will therefore be sent only to those Lords who have not attended any sitting of the House, except to take the oath, in the last Session of the old Parliament. I think it will be of interest to your Lordships to know that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who was a Chairman of the 1955 Select Committee on the Powers of the House in relation to attendance of its Members attended the last meeting of the Procedure Committee and expressed his agreement to this change in our present practice. My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, we have just added four youthful, intelligent, and apparently immortal members to the Procedure Committee, and we are now receiving its Report, which indicates a great deal of work. Is it not rather a waste of time for the Committee to go on dealing with procedure when we do not yet know whether the Government are going to carry out their Election pledge of reforming this House as regards its powers, and possibly as regards its functions? I am not suggesting that the Committee should be dissolved. I may be a revolutionary, but I am not as revolutionary as that. I am, however, suggesting that instead of going on like this, vivace or allegro, whatever the right word is in musical notation, it might be as well to go piano for a bit.
LORD REA: My Lords, might I take objection to the noble Lord's remarks and say that I do not agree? It is fifty years since we were told that reform of this House "brooks no delay". We are told that there is to be no mechanical device for the shortening of speeches, from which I take it that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is not to be regarded as a mechanical device. In the meantime, may I suggest that we should proceed as we are until somebody makes some suggestion about what ought to be done?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not think I have anything to add to the very long, almost interminable, speech I made when, not so long ago, we last debated the whole future of this House. I am sure the House will not want to hear from me again on that subject for quite a long while.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in reply to what has been said, may I say that perhaps there is one point on which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will forgive my commenting, as it is on a matter of fact. The Members of the Procedure Committee, like all the other members of the Sessional Committees of your Lordships' House, are appointed for one Session only. Therefore they are not in any sense immortal, because their appointment has to be renewed by your Lordships at the beginning of every Session of this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LLANGOLLEN INTERNATIONAL MUSICAL EISTEDDFOD BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TOKYO CONVENTION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DEER (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

IRON CASTING INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER 1967
3.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON) rose to move, That the Draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1967, laid before the House on May 11, 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order, which my right honourable friend the Minister of Power proposes to make, is to impose levies on the iron casting industry to finance scientific research to be carried out on behalf of the industry by the British Cast Iron Research Association. If I may, I will give a brief explanation, and if there are any questions I shall be pleased to answer them. I stress that this is entirely a non-controversial Order.
The Association is a grant-aided research association financed in part by income derived from the industry which it serves and in part by Government grant, like so many of the research associations which have served industry so well. From its inception in 1921 until
1172
July, 1966, that part of the income provided by the industry was contributed on a voluntary basis. But since that date it has been provided by a statutory levy imposed on those engaged in the industry, under a scheme made by the Iron and Steel Board under Section 13 of the Iron and Steel Act 1953. This statutory levy was introduced only after prolonged consultation had convinced the Board that an adequate income for the British Cast Iron Research Association could not be covered on the basis of voluntary contributions. The Iron and Steel Act 1967 provides for the Iron and Steel Board to be effectively deprived of any functions, and that the greater part of the Iron and Steel Act 1953 shall be repealed on vesting day, which is to be July 28. It is in order to ensure that sums will continue to be made available for research in the iron casting industry, that my right honourable friend proposes to make the Order which we are debating to-day.
The Order, which is to be made under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, will impose levies on the industry. These will be calculated, as they were under the Iron and Steel Board's scheme, by reference to the production of iron casting and the number of persons employed in such production. The rates are the same as those charged under the Board's scheme; namely 7½d. for every ton of leviable iron casting produced in a "relevant production quarter", and 6s. for every leviable worker employed in the last week of any such quarter. Perhaps I might add that the definition of "leviable worker" has been altered to make it clear that it includes persons employed wholly or mainly in the maintenance of premises, plant or machinery for the production of iron castings.
It is expected that the levies will yield something in the region of £200,000 a year, and this sum will enable the Research Association to continue to qualify for a grant from the Ministry of Technology, which is usually awarded on a quinquennial basis and at present amounts to £80,000 a year. The Draft Order is acceptable to the bodies with whom it has been discussed in accordance with the requirements of the 1947 Act.
It may be helpful if I conclude by saying a little about the British Cast Iron

1173
Research Association, which was established in 1921 as an incorporated body limited by guarantee. Its purposes are to find means of improving the quality of cast iron, facilitating its manufacture and extending its uses. For example, the Association initiated the research which led to the production of spheroidal graphite cast iron, a material now widely used for components requiring good strength and ductility. Further economic advantages are expected to arise from increased efficiency rather than from innovation, and accordingly the Association's interests cover melting, moulding materials, methods of automatic control and improvement to the working conditions in foundries. I have outlined only the essentials of the scheme which is, in effect, a successor to the Iron and Steel Board's scheme, but if noble Lords desire to ask any questions I shall be pleased to try to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1967, laid before the House on May 11, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords in all parts of the House, may I express thanks and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having explained to us so lucidly the purposes of this Draft Order, and what lies behind it, particularly at a time when he has a number of other preoccupations, including the Statement to be made later this afternoon. As a result of what he has said I think we are quite clear what a leviable iron casting is and what a leviable worker is, including even the tea boys who are an essential part of a hot place like an iron foundry.
The work which the Association does is of value to the whole industry, and it is only fair that all should contribute since all can benefit. I hope that as British industry becomes more enlightened it will be unnecessary to have Statutory Instruments to secure payments which will otherwise not be made by the more backward members of the industry. Until that stage is reached, it is obviously right and fair that a levy should be statutory, so that all contribute and all may benefit. May I thank the noble Lord for introducing this Draft Order to us this afternoon, and express the hope
1174
that we shall be able to secure its passage with the minimum of delay.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, as one who has been engaged in this industry for many years, I should like to take this opportunity of giving the heartiest support possible to this Motion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, and the noble Marquess, who is certainly the oldest apprentice engineer in this House, and to whom we always listen very carefully. Perhaps I ought to say that there is a possibility that those most concerned with this Draft Order may ask for the basis of the levy to be changed in a year or two. It has been suggested that there might be a different system from the present one; that is, that the levy should be based on output and wages. But that does not arise at the moment and, of course, it would have to come before your Lordships' House if there were to be a change.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) BILL
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Gaitskell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that no Amendments have been put down to this Bill. The Question, therefore, is that I report the Bill to the House without amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I desire to ask one question. I asked it on Second Reading, but I did not expect an answer then. I hope for one now. What is the Government's attitude about Scotland in this matter?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the noble Lord wishes to ask

1175
a question, I shall have to go through the Bill in the ordinary way.
Clause 1 [Provision by local health authority of services in connection with contraception]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MITCHISON: I repeat the question I have just asked.
LORD BESWICK: Perhaps I can help here. As the clause makes clear, this is a Bill which refers to England or Wales, and it is rather late to contemplate its extension to Scotland. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland has authorised me to say that he has certainly not closed his mind to the possibility of some similar provision for Scotland, although the Bill does not seem to be the best vehicle for it, particularly because it might run into procedural difficulties if it returned to the Commons. There is certainly no question of the Scottish Office having been inactive in relation to family planning. A circular was issued to local authorities a year ago encouraging them to use their existing powers. So, whilst the Secretary of State has not received any representations from local authorities in Scotland in favour of extending the Bill to Scotland, he would certainly look sympathetically on a Private Member's Bill for the same purpose, suitably tailored to meet Scottish circumstances.
LORD MITCHISON: I should like to thank my noble friend, if I may.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

CIVIC AMENITIES BILL
3.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Preservation of character of areas of special architectural or historic interest
1.—
(6) The local planning authority for the purposes of this section shall, in Greater London, be the Greater London Council and also—

(a) in relation to the City and the Temples, the Common Council; and

(b) in relation to a London borough, the council of that borough.

LORD STRANGmoved, in subsection (5), to leave out "regard shall be had" and insert "special attention shall be paid". The noble Lord said: This is a simple little Amendment but it is one which, if it were agreed to, would improve the Bill in one of its basic clauses. The Amendment is designed to give effect to a suggestion which I made in the debate on Second Reading.
Let us see what Clause 1 of the Bill says. Subsection (1) places upon local planning authorities the important duty of determining and designating certain areas of special architectural or historic interest. Those areas, which are called Conservation Areas, are defined as being areas
"… the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance …"
That duty is so important that under subsection (2) the Minister is given power to issue directions to local planning authorities in regard to the exercise by them of that duty—directions with which, I may say, local authorities will be obliged to comply. The importance of that duty is still further emphasised by the fact that this is the only place in the Bill where any such power of direction by the Minister is provided.
Let us now pass to subsection (5). In that subsection we find an instruction to local planning authorities—and, indeed,

1177
maybe to others—as to the manner in which they are to exercise their powers under existing historic buildings and planning Acts when dealing with the Conservation Areas which are designated under subsection (1). But, reading subsection (5), one is surprised to find how vague and loose is the instruction in this matter given, for example, to local planning authorities for the execution of the important duty laid on them by subsection (1). All that subsection (5) says is:
"… regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance …"
—that is, of a Conservation Area. Surely in a matter as important as this—a matter which is the basic purpose of this Part of the Bill—that instruction should be more specific and less lukewarm. Surely the special duty of local planning authorities under subsection (1) should be given some measure of higher priority than the bare words of this subsection would imply.
Could we not go further than merely saying, as the present wording has it, that
"regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing …"?
Could we not at least say, instead, that
"special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing …"?
These words, it seems to me, would be more in keeping with the beneficent purposes of this excellent Bill than the words which at present appear in subsection (5).
It was suggested in Committee in another place that the Bill might go even further than my Amendment proposes, and that it might in fact place a definite responsibility upon local planning authorities to preserve or enhance. Indeed, there would be a precedent for this. That precedent could be found in, among other places, the National Parks Act, where both the National Parks Commission and local authorities have a statutory responsibility as regards preservation and enhancement in National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. This, of course, would be better, though it is fair to say that the sponsor of the Bill in another place thought that it would be going too far. In a Private Member's Bill one has to be properly modest, and I think the Amendment which I am now moving goes as far as we can go as a
1178
matter of practical politics. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("regard shall be had") and insert ("special attention shall be paid").—(Lord Strang.)
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord, Lord Strang, speaks with great authority on these amenity matters. I found myself in considerable sympathy with what he said at Second Reading on this point, and I now find myself in entire agreement with what he has said in moving his Amendment. I think it materially improves the wording of the Bill, and I shall be very glad to accept it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): This Amendment is entirely welcome to the Government, and I am glad to be able to advise the Committee to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to insert after subsection (5):
"( ) Where an application for planning permission for any development of land is made to a local planning authority and either the development would, in the opinion of the authority, affect the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or the development is of a kind specified by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection and in respect of land in or adjacent to a Conservation Area, then—

(a) the local planning authority shall publish in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land is situated a notice indicating the nature of the development in question and naming a place within the locality where a copy of the application, and of all plans and other documents submitted with it, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date of publication of the notice; and

(b) the application shall not be determined by the local planning authority before the end of the period aforesaid; and

(c) without prejudice to the requirements of subsection (5) of this section, in determining the application the local planning authority shall take into account any representations relating to the application which are received by them before the end of that period."

The noble Earl said: The object of this rather lengthy Amendment is simple and, I hope, clear. It is to make certain that adequate publicity shall be given locally by local advertisement to any

1179
development proposals which might affect the character or the look of a Conservation Area. It also makes certain, in so far as legislation can make anything certain, that the local planning authority concerned should take due account of any representation which they may receive either from private individuals or from local amenity bodies. I think the Amendment is right in itself; it is right that such people should have the chance to represent when a proposal affecting a Conservation Area is under discussion and that it should be fairly easy for them to know that such a proposal has been tabled. It is also right that we should in this way involve more local people in the local planning process.
I would make two further points in explaining this Amendment. Normally, it would be for the local planning authority to decide whether a particular development proposal should be advertised in this way. I should have thought that this was right. But, as your Lordships will see from the wording of the Amendment, the Minister would also have the power to specify the type of development which should be subject to these rather special provisions. The other point is that the proposed development need not necessarily fall within the actual Conservation Area. The Amendment embraces any development affecting the character or appearance of such an area. It would thus catch a tall building or a gas-holder if that tall building or gas-holder, as it were, leaned up against or impinged upon the Conservation Area but was not designed to be actually within it.
I should like to take this opportunity, early in the Committee stage, of saying that this particular Amendment has its origin within Lord Kennet's Ministry and has flowed from the pen of Parliamentary draftsmen. In moving it, I would take the opportunity once again of expressing on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill our appreciation of the help that the Government have given to it in speeding it at least this far on its way, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, personally, his colleagues and, not least, his officials for the help they have given me between the Second Reading stage and now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.23 p.m.
EARL JELLICOEmoved, in subsection (6), to leave out "and the Temples" and insert "of London". The noble Earl said: This Amendment could, I suppose, be held to be a minor one as it covers a fairly minor, though important area of our country, but I shall not be so rash as to suggest that it is all that minor an Amendment, seeing that it affects in some measure the sovereignty of the Temples, the wishes of the Benchers. Also, to some degree, I am moving it as a result of friendly but firm representations which I have received from my noble friend Lord Silsoe—who has said that he is sorry to be unable to be here this afternoon.
It was represented to me before the Second Reading of the Bill that the wording of this part of it could be held to imply that the City of London might in some way have certain planning authority over the Temples. I do not think that that was necessarily intended. In any event, as your Lordships will see, this Amendment provides that for the purposes of designation in Clause 1(1) of the Bill the authority responsible for planning purposes within the area of the Temples would be the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("and the Temples") and insert ("of London").— (Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Unauthorised works on listed buildings and contravention of building preservation orders]:
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment, if agreed to, means that the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction for the contravention of a building preservation order or for the illicit demolition or alteration of a listed building shall be increased from £100 to £250. It is true that £100 is the maximum fine laid down in the 1962 Planning Act, but it seems right that we should allow for

1181
some increase to take account of past or future falls in the value of our money—falls to which we have become only too accustomed. Moreover, raising the ceiling would mean that the fine for (if I could put it this way) "topping" or "lopping" a listed building would be the same as that for topping or lopping a listed tree. To me, at least, this seems right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("two hundred and fifty").— (Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD KENNET: I should like to take this opportunity to complete the exchange of courtesies initiated by the noble Earl. He mentioned that an earlier Amendment had been born in my Ministry and adopted by him as sponsor of the Bill in this place. This Amendment was born in the minds of the sponsors. I am happy to accept it on behalf of the Government and to advise the Committee to do the same.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD RAGLAN: I suggested on Second Reading that the fact that a building had been listed should be entered on the deeds so that there should be as little excuse as possible for an owner not knowing that fact. I did not like lines 11 to 15 on page 3 of the Bill where ignorance of the building's being listed is allowed as an excuse. I tried to work out an Amendment, but I found what I should have known already; namely, that only an owner may make entries on deeds. Looking at it from his point of view, first of all some busybody comes along and lists his building, and then he is told that he must write a letter to his solicitor enclosing 13s. 4d. I thought that this was rather hard on him.
It is especially hard when you remember that listing a building may reduce its value because of the difficulty an owner may find in getting alterations accepted. That is adding injury to insult. The owner of a listed building becomes no longer the full owner but has, in some respects, to share his house with the nation. This is something which should be looked into and thought over. If we are going to preserve historically-interest
1182
ing houses then someone needs to be freer with the grants than he can be at the moment.
There is another side to this question which I shall come to on my Amendment to Clause 3. Someone may be able to buy a listed building more cheaply than if it were not listed, and he may then let it fall down until it is past mending. I suppose he could then use ignorance as an excuse. Meanwhile, I should like to put this point to my noble friend. Under this clause, in this Part of the Bill, ignorance is an excuse. But that is not so with regard to the cutting down of trees under Part II. If it is right for the one, I should have thought it ought to be right for the other. Can he tell me the reason for the difference, or whether it is just an oversight?
3.30 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I have a great deal of sympathy with the general remarks of my noble friend Lord Raglan. We should have liked to go further in many directions in respect of this Bill, but for various reasons we decided to advise the sponsors that they should not do so. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, may have something to say about this particular point, but the Government considered this let-out and the discrepancy between the existence of a let-out in the case of an existing building and the absence of a let-out in the case of a tree with a preservation order on it.
I would point out that the let-out is rather rigidly drafted. You have positively to prove that you did not know and could not have known, which might be a very difficult thing to prove, for, to begin with, no owner of a listed building on which a building preservation order had been put during his ownership could possibly claim that he did not know about it, because he would have received notice of it. Moreover, anyone who purchases a listed building on which there is a building preservation order would be extremely rash if he did not bother to consult the Land Register, not only for that reason but for many others; and if he did he would find notice there of the order. There are other classes of lessees who might come in one or two removes from the freeholder or the owner in terms of the Bill, and with the best will in the world might simply not know

1183
that a building preservation order existed. It seems infinitely unlikely that there would be such people, but we should risk doing an injustice if we did not cater for those suffering from sheer ignorance by ill-chance, if there is such a category of rare bird.
In the case of a tree you are either the owner or you are not. Leases are not exchanged on trees. There are not sub-lessees for trees, so it seemed to us that there was no need for a let-out in respect of trees. I do not know whether that explanation will prove sufficiently comprehensible and extensive for my noble friend.
LORD RAGLAN: I will have a look at what my noble friend has said, and I am obliged to him for his explanation.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Acts causing or likely to result in damage to listed buildings]:
3.33 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Where it appears to a local planning authority that such a building in their area as is described in subsection (1) of this section suffers damage or is in danger of destruction as a result of the neglect of the owner or, if the owner is not the occupier, the occupier, they shall serve on the owner or occupier as the case may be a notice requiring him to furnish them with a statement in writing of his intention to, or the reasons why he should not, repair the damage or prevent the destruction of the said building.
( ) If within twenty-eight days after service of the notice on him under the last foregoing subsection the owner or occupier—

(a) fails to comply with the notice; or

(b) fails

(i) to take steps to repair the damage or prevent the destruction; and

(ii) to satisfy the local planning authority that there is good reason why he should not repair the damage or prevent the destruction,

they shall serve on the owner or occupier a second notice requiring him to repair the damage or take steps to prevent the destruction.
( ) An owner who fails to take steps to repair the damage or prevent the destruction within seven days of the service on him of the second notice under the last foregoing subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to try to cover the case
1184
of wilful neglect. If someone is living in a listed building it is not likely that he will allow it to fall down about him on purpose. It is when the house changes hands that the danger comes. As I said earlier, a property can have its value reduced by being listed, and this is where the unprincipled speculator can move in. He can buy property which may be in a strategically valuable part of the town, and he can let it fall down until it would cost so much to put it right that the Historic Buildings Council would have no practical alternative but to allow him to pull it down. He could then replace the building with several new and expensive houses. I am aware that there are some limitations to this Amendment—some have already been pointed out to me privately—but I hope that the Government and the noble Earl will accept the idea behind it and work it into the legislation somewhere. After all, the whole point of listing a building is to try to preserve it, and I think it most important that, somehow or other, we should try to prevent the sort of thing I have described from happening.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Raglan.)
LORD HAILES: I wish to say a few words in support of the spirit of this Amendment, though not perhaps exactly on the same lines as those on which he spoke. This is an Amendment in response to an exploratory invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. In the Historic Buildings Council's Annual Report of 1965 we referred to two defects in the law of which we had become particularly aware. A provision has been made in this Bill regarding the first, which we all hope will prove effective, and which, to put it shortly, refers to the illicit and often sudden destruction of a building of historic or architectural importance.
The second defect is the one to which I think this Amendment refers. Perhaps I may quote from the Report:
"A no less serious threat to an historic building is simple neglect. In this case there is no power to issue a preservation order and consequently no power of compulsory purchase, with the result that the owner can allow the building to deteriorate until demolition becomes inevitable. While we fully recognise the difficulties which owners experience, and share in the general reluctance to add to the number

1185
of restrictions, we feel that the existing compulsory powers, even if exercised only on the rarest occasions, should be extended to cover the most serious cases of neglect."
I think it would be a mistake, and harmful, to give the impression that deliberate neglect is very widespread. There is, after all, a growing conscience and interest, both public and private, about our historic architectural inheritance; but I can think of instances which have come to the notice of the Historic Buildings Council relating to buildings of first-class importance, where there has been wilful neglect. The cases may range from what I might call a muddled, dog-in-the-manger attitude, to deliberate neglect, with only one end in view. Of course, it does not matter which it is, the result is the same—a demolition order, and the end of the road.
I think I am right in saying that at present, or in any provisions of this Bill, there is no real answer to this problem. I know that there are provisions in the Bill to deal with the owner who helps a building to decay by removing a tile, and so on; but this does not cover the case of an owner who simply watches the beetles breed and the dry rot producing bigger and better "mushrooms", or whatever they are technically called. I know, also, that there are powers for a local authority to take over a neglected building. But the taking over of some great house by a local authority raises many problems. Nor can the Historic Buildings Council do anything if their offer of a grant is refused, and the owner refuses to co-operate.
I know that this is a very difficult matter. It may be, for instance, that an owner has taken over a house from a previous owner who has been responsible for the neglect, and there are also difficulties from the point of view of the local authorities. I dare say it is not possible to deal with this problem in a proper form within the scope of an Amendment; but even though I think that I am pushing an open door I hope that this most important loophole can be closed, if not by means of an Amendment, then in some other way.
LORD MOLSON: I should like to add my voice to those noble Lords who have urged on the Government that this is an opportunity to try to do something about a very serious problem. It is, of course,
1186
immensely difficult. In respect of some buildings of outstanding artistic or historical importance nothing is being done. I can think of a case in Wales, where the owner of a house of outstanding historical importance absolutely refused, for no very easily understood reason, to accept a grant in order to preserve his house.
This problem goes all the way down the scale. It goes down far below the level which my noble friend Lord Hailes has been considering. It goes down to a large number of houses, sometimes only class 2 houses. I come across some of them in my capacity as a member of the Executive Council of the Georgian Society. I know of some charming buildings, which no one can say are of a class that would justify a grant being paid from public funds, but which I believe should be kept in good order and for which some use should be found.
Obviously, it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to find some provision which will not impose an unduly heavy burden upon the large number of owners of these charming old houses which could not be described as being of outstanding importance. It is difficult, and in many cases it would be wrong, for Parliament to seek to impose a heavy financial responsibility on them. But I wonder whether between now and Report stage the Government would look at this Amendment and try to work out something which would be flexible and would deal with the more serious cases, without imposing an undue burden in those cases where it was not appropriate. I doubt whether this is a matter which ought to be left to a local planning authority. I feel that anything in the way of compulsion of this kind should be limited to buildings of such importance that there would have to be some chance of a grant being made by the Historic Buildings Council. I think it would be very dangerous if powers were given to local authorities to impose financial burdens on owners of houses, if the local authorities themselves were not prepared to make any kind of financial contribution to help.
It occurs to me that this might be a case where the Minister should take responsibility for the matter and apply the same kind of standard all over the country, limiting it in his discretion to outstanding cases of importance. I put that

1187
forward as the best constructive suggestion I can make. I am only too well aware of the difficulties that are involved in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. But everybody who has had experience of preservation realises that there is this appalling problem. At present the owner can only be forbidden from doing anything positive in the way of destruction. But there are an immense number of houses and buildings of all kinds which are rapidly falling into decay and when they reach a certain stage it then becomes impossible for the local authority to refuse permission to demolish. The noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary, in an interesting speech a short time ago, said that we were losing an historic building "every day of the year". This Amendment, even if it is not acceptable in its present form, offers an opportunity which the Government should take in order to deal with this special problem to which the noble Lord himself has drawn public attention.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and your Lordshops will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and not accept this Amendment in its present form. I do not suppose that anyone would disagree with the spirit of it, but carried out in the way in which it is proposed to put it into the Bill it could inflict great financial hardship on people who could not possibly afford the charge. Like myself many noble Lords have had the unpleasant experience of finding extensive outbreaks of dry rot suddenly appearing where its existence could not have been suspected. All too often, investigation shows that if the building in question is to be put right, the amount to be spent on it will run into thousands of pounds, and in some cases tens of thousands of pounds. If an owner has inherited a house or property on which he has had to pay heavy death duties, it will be virtually impossible for him to carry on if he is told that the roof beams of his house are in a bad state and that they will have to be entirely renewed. Surely, it would be wrong to insist that an owner shall undertake this responsibility.
As to the question of a grant, if a grant were proposed which would fully or almost fully cover the repairs, then I think
1188
an owner would be both morally and legally wrong to refuse such a grant. But if in addition to the grant he is to be forced to spend many thousands of pounds which he does not have, at least in the form of ready cash, I think it is totally unfair. I suggest that something should be considered between now and Report stage which would make it possible for the local authority or for the Ministry of Works to take over any such building if it is in serious danger and if the owner is genuinely unable to carry out the necessary repairs. If that were done, it would meet this admittedly serious situation; but I do not think that the Amendment in its present form is one which should be accepted.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in what they have said. I should not like your Lordships definitely to accept this Amendment. As the two noble Lords have said, it may be unfair to some owners of historic houses who are anxious to keep them in repair but are financially unable to do so. It is rather absurd, when one works this matter out logically. The State has ruined the owners of many historic houses, and if this Amendment were accepted the State would then be in a position to say to them, "We have taken all your money by taxation. We are now going to fine you heavily for not repairing your house."
LORD RAGLAN: The Amendment, which did not flow from the pen of a Parliamentary draftsman, says:
"…there is good reason why he should not repair the damage…".
I think that having no money is a good reason.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It is up to the local authority here, and they vary greatly. I have come across some very odd ones. I am completely with the noble Lord's Amendment in spirit. It would close a great many loopholes. But if an owner is offered a quarter grant he may genuinely not be able to find the other three-quarters and may refuse the grant. I presume that he would have to undergo some kind of means test. I should like to say that if this Amendment was passed it would

1189
be unfair to quite a few owners. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will not pass the Amendment, but I quite understand the worthy motives of the noble Lord in moving it.
3.50 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to say, first of all, that I agree very much with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said in moving this Amendment. I think that my four noble friends who have spoken are also in large measure in agreement that here is a definite loophole in our present legislation governing listed buildings. I am sure we are all agreed that under the law as it stands, or under the law as it will be reinforced by this measure, if it becomes law, local authorities have considerable powers to prevent the deliberate destruction of fine old buildings by positive action. But we have not at the present moment any adequate powers to prevent their destruction by negative action; that is, by wilful neglect. I recognise that this is a serious loophole. Such cases of wilful neglect have occurred, and doubtless are occurring. I was only too vividly aware of this during the time when I was in the Ministry which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, at present occupies, when more than one case was brought to my notice. This can, over a period of time, represent a quite serious attrition of our heritage of fine and distinguished old buildings.
I am therefore absolutely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in thinking that this is a matter which should be tackled, and should be tackled soon. But I am in agreement also with the doubts expressed by some of my noble friends as to whether it should be tackled in precisely the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, suggests in his Amendment. I should like to mention three defects, as I see them, in the Amendment as it stands at present. The first is that it refers specifically to neglect by the present owner or the present occupier of a listed building. But that neglect may extend back a great deal further. It may result from the sins of omission of a grandfather or a great-grandfather, and whatever is said in the wording of the Bill, it is difficult to differentiate, and may be even more difficult to differentiate where it is the grandfather's or the grandson's neglect.
1190
The second possible defect is that I find myself in some difficulty in believing that this Amendment, if adopted, would lead to effective action and an effective remedy. There is, it is true, a provision for a penalty of £100; and I do not in any way underestimate the publicity aspect of the case. But the penalty itself might, as some of my friends have by implication pointed out, be a great deal less than the actual cost of repairs. Then there is the third question of these powers being vested in the local planning authority, and the fact that there would be no right of appeal against an unreasonable or unfair decision by a particular local planning authority. I think that the concept of wilful neglect is likely to open up difficult and debatable areas, and it is quite possible that in a particular case a local planning authority might well be wrong. I should have thought that, whatever else one does, one would need to have some safety net of appeal.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will not feel that these tentative criticisms of his Amendment which I have voiced are in any way niggling. I think this is a difficult area. if between now and the Report stage he and I, with the Government's help, and bearing in mind what has been said, could devise a way round these difficulties, I, for one, should be very willing to try. But I must confess that I am a little doubtful whether in the time available it will be possible for us to devise a really watertight provision for what is clearly an important matter, but also a difficult one.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not want to say more than a word or two of general observation upon what has been said already. I think it is important, when framing a Statute, not to drive people to desperation. There are a great many houses on which preservation orders exist and which are inhabited by people, so performing the function they were built to perform. I am thinking particularly of some of the small houses in the neighbourhood of Kew, which stand on the Green and were, I believe, the first houses in our history built for humble middle-class people who wanted to live a civilised life in really nice small dwelling-houses. There are many houses of that sort scattered about the country, and they derive their value from the fact that they

1191
are being used precisely as they were built to be used. The occupants are generally most amenable; they will always show people over the house, and in that way are serving a public function. They are paying heavy rates, and have a small income; they can just manage to live, as their parents before them did in the same way. If these people are driven to desperation, they will simply keep as quiet as possible and sink out of sight: the buildings will go to pieces, and you will not be able to stop it.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I should have thought that a fruitful place to look to solve this difficult problem would be the possibility of giving owners a rates "holiday" or the houses a kind of old-age pension. Most of these houses are old, and the allowance on rates for repairs is quite inadequate. I should have thought that it might be worth while considering whether it would be possible to arrange some kind of rates holiday or old-age pension provided that the owners undertake the restoration work as necessary.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Viscount has made a highly interesting suggestion in suggesting that houses should become eligible for an old-age pension. The trouble is that if we embark on an old-age pension policy for houses we may have to extend it to other kinds of property. I have a motor car which I feel is rapidly beginning to lose its usefulness. If the Government could promise that a car will receive an old-age pension, I am sure that this would be a modern reform that would be welcome to millions of people in this country to-day. No; I do not think we can give pensions to old houses.
Viscount STONEHAVEN: The noble Lord is aware that if the car is old enough it does get an old-age pension.
BARONESS STOCKS: If the noble Lord's car is a civic amenity, then it will qualify.
LORD HOLFORD: Although I appreciate the purpose of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I must say that I prefer the wording of the original clause. The original clause says:
"doing an act which causes or is likely to result in damage to the building"
1192
whereas the Amendment talks about,
"a building … suffers damage or is in danger of destruction".
It seems to me that the original clause is very much more to the point here. Let your Lordships be in no error about the deliberate damage done to buildings. I can quote one case, among many, which affected a grade one building. I went down to discuss the matter with the owner, and he was courtesy itself; but, as he pointed with evident appreciation to a large pane of glass which had been broken in the skylight, he told me exactly the kind of trees he would plant on the site when the house had been demolished. This is a rare case, but grade one buildings also are rare. I think that to put, as has been done in the original clause, slightly more direct and blunt words such as "causing such damage" is better than to fog the issue by saying that the damage might be due to causes like dry rot or any other kind of damage a building might suffer. This means, I think, that between now and Report stage, or perhaps in later legislation, the very important problem that has been touched on by other noble Lords, which is compulsory acquisition of buildings, must be tackled. But I should prefer to leave the clause as it is.
4.2 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I should like to take up one or two suggestions which have been thrown out in the most interesting discussion on the Amendment, before coming to the Amendment itself. Need I say that the Government share the view of my noble friend Lord Raglan and of the noble Earl, the sponsor of this Bill, that something ought to be done about this matter? I do not think that powers to enforce repair ought to be linked to the availability of grant, because the people who stand most in need of having something forced on them by local authorities are those whose prime intention it is to see the building fall down quickly. There are wicked owners in the terms of this matter who want a listed building on a valuable site to decay as quickly as possible, without going so far as to destroy it with their own hands. They should not be offered grants. They may be wealthy themselves; they may be corporate persons of great wealth. It would be enough if we could introduce these powers to enable local authorities to force

1193
them to repair without helping them by so much as a penny.
In other cases local authorities already have power to pay the money for upkeep of buildings which they regard as of historic or architectural interest. I do not think we need fear, in introducing such an Amendment, now or later, that we shall drive small people to desperation. This is not the purpose of any local authority known to me in this field, and is not likely to be the aim achieved by any local authority. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, suggested a rate rebate for listed buildings to facilitate repairs. It may interest him to know that this is something we have had under rather active consideration. But it does not look like a very good idea, because it could be only of general application; and if one looks at the large number of listed buildings owned by the Big Five banks, and other organisations, which stand in no need of rate rebate, one sees that it would be a somewhat inflexible way of approaching the problem.
As for the "old-age pension" for listed buildings, the position is that they get it already. They get the grant—a kind of old-age pension—which is spent on adding lavatories and other amenities; it is, as it were, providing false teeth for the buildings they generally provide. They get patching grants to prop up the buildings for the last few years of their life, and if their continued existence appears worthy to be judged as a social priority they get an historic buildings grant, under the wise guidance of Lord Hailes. So the idea of the "old-age pension" for buildings is already well established.
As to the purpose of this Amendment, it has to come. As drafted, it has certain difficulties and provides for a rather complex procedure. The noble Earl has enumerated the difficulties already, and I will not go through them again. But I would ask my noble friend if he would at this moment withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the Government are studying provision for this very purpose. We have already gone some way with the legal and practical implications, and the Government intend, after consulting with the local authority associations, to introduce a provision of this sort at a convenient time. Whether that convenient time can be as soon as the Report stage of this Bill, I very much
1194
doubt. If it is not, I hope and believe that it will be possible to introduce it in the proposals for a new planning Bill which are now taking shape.
LORD RAGLAN: First of all, I should like respectfully to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Holford, who said he preferred the wording in the Bill as it is at the moment, that this Amendment is designed to cover what the Bill does not, I believe, cover. The Bill refers to doing something; this Amendment is meant to refer to somebody who does not do something. That is its purpose.
LORD HOLFORD: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, but I still feel that what Clause 3(1) is doing is set out there, and that the other purpose should in fact come later.
LORD RAGLAN: I accept all that has been said, and there is much in the Amendment to be criticised. However, I am glad to find so much support among your Lordships for the spirit of the Amendment. Having heard what my noble friend Lord Kennet has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps it would be convenient now for my Statement to be made on South Arabia, and I therefore beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

ADEN AND THE SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION
4.8 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary is speaking in another place this afternoon on the Government's policy towards South Arabia. As noble Lords know, I have recently spent two months in South Arabia and in London on South Arabian matters, and with the leave of the House I should like to take this opportunity to make a Statement this afternoon and give the gist of the Government's proposals. I must apologise for the length of the Statement, but in view of the importance of the subject I believe the House would

1195
welcome a reasonably detailed report. I must also apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for interrupting the proceedings on his Civic Amenities Bill. I will deal only briefly with the situation as I found it in the course of my mission to South Arabia, but will concentrate on setting out the main decisions being announced to-day by Her Majesty's Government. I shall, however, be glad to try to answer any questions.
The main factors—and I shall try to put this as uncontroversially as possible—are, first, that the Federation of South Arabia was created only in 1958 from a number of separate States in large areas of which primitive tribal conditions still prevail. Furthermore, there have been particular difficulties in integrating Aden into the Federation. In 1964 Ministers of the day declared there should be Independence by 1968, and finally in 1966 the present Government, in the context of last year's Defence Review, decided to withdraw our base from Aden. In the light of that decision Her Majesty's Government concluded that it would be wrong to have a defence treaty with the successor Government of South Arabia, since without a military position in that country we should not be able to honour its provisions. Moreover, to maintain a military presence would have been to attract the continuing denunciation by Arab nationalists everywhere, both of ourselves and of the Government we were trying to defend, as "Imperialist stooges".
In the meanwhile, the campaign of intimidation and violence, supported and increasingly organised by the Egyptians from the Yemen, was continuing to grow and showed itself in violence not only against our own troops but also against Arabs, who are the principal sufferers from such violence. We therefore recognised the need to build up South Arabia's armed forces and committed ourselves to a large-scale expansion of the Federal forces in the period from 1966 up to 1971 in addition to the amount we were already spending, and this additional cost amounted to some £36 million.
At the same time, we encouraged political evolution in order to establish a Government with a broader base than the one composed mainly of State rulers or their representatives, which came into
1196
being as a result of the act of federation. The Federal Government, let me stress, itself wishes to broaden its base, but, as noble Lords know, so far all our efforts, including a number of attempts which I personally made to make contact with terrorist leaders, have been unsuccessful. We had also hoped that the United Nations could help in bringing about some form of coalition of the various political forces in South Arabia, but the United Nations Mission also was frustrated by the unwillingness of the extremist Parties to co-operate. Nevertheless, we still hope that the United Nations can play a part in bringing about a broad-based Government.
When I arrived in South Arabia in April of this year I found that the situation was continuing to deteriorate. In particular, the Egyptian campaign of subversion had intensified in South Arabia and as Independence approached ever nearer the South Arabians were themselves, being the victims of this, becoming increasingly anxious about their future in the face of an enemy who was prepared in the Yemen to use any means, including poison gas, to wipe out opposition. It was clear that the first need was to strengthen South Arabia's self-confidence and its ability to stand up to the Egyptian threat, whether in the shape of overt aggression or large-scale subversion inside South Arabia. At the same time, it was also clear that we should continue our efforts to associate all political groups, including the extremists, in South Arabia with the Government on as broad a base as possible.
Accordingly, my right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, has decided on a number of measures designed to meet these objectives. They are based on the recommendations of the new High Commissioner, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, and myself, and I may add that they have been accepted in their entirety by Her Majesty's Government. Together they form a package of proposals which constitute a major issue of policy, and I should like now to outline these measures.
First of all, there is the date of Independence and the necessary constitutional advance towards that end. The Government have decided that the date of Independence should be January 9, 1968. We have also decided that we should accept, in respect of Aden, a draft Constitution

1197
designed for an independent State which the South Arabian Government are circulating to the member States of the Federation for approval. The new Constitution, which is based on the recommendations of Sir Gawain Bell and Sir Ralph Hone, two distinguished constitutional advisers, will be modern in form, will provide for an effective Government, for human rights, for eventual elections on the basis of a universal adult franchise and for the integration of Aden and the present Federal capital of Al Ittihad in a capital territory for the whole State. There will also be provision within the Constitution, if this be possible, for the immediate formation of a central caretaker Government. Though South Arabia is not yet independent, we are prepared for such a Constitution to come into force before Independence provided that certain essential transitional provisions are made to cover the remaining period of our sovereignty in Aden State and our responsibility for its welfare. We regard a new Constitution as essential now in the interests of an advance towards democracy, economic rationalisation and progress, and above all towards obtaining a broader-based and more liberal Arabian Government.
Secondly, my right honourable friend has decided to take action under four heads to strengthen the security of the emergent country. To meet the threat of armed subversion fomented from abroad, and external aggression, Her Majesty's Government have decided that South Arabia needs some more help in the form of additional money, assistance and equipment for the army, the air force and the forces in the Eastern Aden Protectorate. We have also decided on a major reassurance to the new State which I shall describe in a moment.
Where the Army is concerned we have informed the Federal Government that we are prepared to pay for the South Arabian Army to re-equip with more modern small arms—the self-loading rifle instead of the Lee Enfield. To any soldier his personal weapon is of the greatest importance, and in a situation in which the enemy is armed with Czech, Chinese or Russian automatic weapons, we decided that the South Arabian Army should be similarly armed. In all the talks that I had with Federal army
1198
officers, in which various facts were stressed, this was the one they stressed most often. We are also prepared to supply additional armoured cars and field artillery, and to give further help with such things as transport communications and base maintenance, and with some medical staff for the Federal forces hospital.
As regards the air force, we have agreed to finance the provision and operation of a squadron of eight Hunter aircraft which would be additional to the Jet Provost ground attack aircraft which the air force is already in process of receiving. In addition we have agreed to provide a strong military aid mission to help the South Arabian forces with advice and training. All of this represents a very important strengthening of the armed forces of South Arabia and should greatly increase not only their combat capability but also their confidence and morale.
Her Majesty's Government have also considered the problem of the unfederated States of the Eastern Aden Protectorate. Our policy is to encourage these States to join the Federation. But it now seems unlikely that they will commit themselves before Independence. This leaves a practical problem of considerable importance. Peace there is maintained not by British arms, but, first by the State forces of the Eastern States, Kathiri, Quaiti and Mahra, all of which I visited, and, secondly, by the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion. It was clear to me that this was a crucial force in maintaining order, and indeed government. The latter is virtually an entirely Arab force but it is British-paid and, at the moment, British-controlled. It operates throughout the Eastern Protectorate and is not confined to any single State there. If it were disbanded, and with current external pressures operating against South Arabia, there would be serious risk of widespread disorder, with a corresponding threat to the Eastern flank of the newly independent State of South Arabia, and also to Dhofar and Muscat.
We are therefore informing the Federal Government and the Governments of the three Eastern States that we are prepared to pay for the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion for two years after Independence if arrangements can be agreed between them to take over control from

1199
us. For example, this could be done by setting up a Military Committee with representatives of the Federal Government and of each of the three Eastern States to control the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion's operations. This should also help to ensure co-ordination in the fields of foreign affairs and defence and not only should help to protect the Eastern flank of the Federation but will, we hope, lead to close association between it and the Eastern States. We are also informing the Federal Government that if it becomes possible to negotiate merger terms in earnest for the Eastern Aden Protectorate States we are prepared to help with the economic problems the merger may create, especially over customs revenue, as well as with the support of the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion.
These measures taken together should enable the South Arabian Government to deal with subversion and armed incursions into its territory and to maintain order. South Arabia has no other wish than to live peacefully with its neighbours, and in such circumstances this scale of armed forces would have been more than adequate. There is, however, the possibility of military aggression from outside, and we have accepted the South Arabian Government's view that they need protection from this threat. The Government have therefore decided to station a strong naval force in South Arabian waters for the critical first six months after Independence. It will include an attack aircraft carrier, the aircraft from which would be used in the repulse of any aggression.
As an additional assurance and measure of deterrence we have also informed the Federal Government that we are prepared to keep a force of V-bombers, with their extensive radius of action and their capacity to carry heavy loads of conventional weapons, within easy range of South Arabia—on the island of Masirah—for the critical months after Independence. They will be available for the six month period of the naval force and for as long thereafter as Her Majesty's Government may determine according to circumstances at the time. The V-bomber force and the naval force taken together constitute a very powerful deterrent which any potential aggressor will have to take very much into account. They are designed to ensure
1200
the safety of the independent State and I am confident will add greatly to achieving that object.
The third ingredient in our package of decisions relates to internal security in Aden. Two considerations have guided the Government. One is the need to deal more effectively and severely with those who are obdurate in maintaining violence. The second is to ensure that this is not counter-productive and that scope is provided for more constructive activity by the extremist organisations. The most important handicap for the authorities has been the intimidation of witnesses and jurors which has effectively prevented the trial of known terrorists. The absence of criminal convictions and the scrupulous observance of the principle that people detained without trial are not convicts has left detainees to enjoy a comfortable régime—indeed having visited it I might say it is more like a boys' holiday camp—which constitutes hardly any sanction against terrorists. This must stop. Jury trial, which is in any case unusual in a Colony, is therefore to be suspended in respect of terrorist offences, subject to suitable safeguards for the defence. Severer sentences of imprisonment will be possible and secure custody will be ensured.
At the same time we are also determined to take every opportunity to open ways towards reconciliation. Experience has shown that in South Arabian conditions the proscription of political Parties, and even terrorist organisations, is pointless and does not seriously inhibit terrorist activity. Experience has also, as I found, shown that it is a bar to useful negotiation. It is an accident of history that the National Liberation Front, which is much more nationalist, indeed anti-Egyptian as well as anti-colonialist, is banned and FLOSY is not. The Government have decided therefore that the ban on the N.L.F. should be lifted. We are also considering the question of releasing some detainees, but it is too early to make a firm announcement on this at the moment.
I have already told the House that Her Majesty's Government have decided on Independence and the withdrawal of the base early in January, 1968. Until then we and the South Arabian Government will make every effort to restore law and order and will also continue our

1201
efforts to persuade the extremist groups that it is in their interest to join in with the Government. We should welcome the help of the United Nations in achieving this. Both the Federal Government and, we believe, their help could be vital for the establishment of the central care-taker Government called for in the U.N. resolutions which both we and the Federal Government have accepted. But in the meanwhile we must press ahead with the plans that I have outlined.
In conclusion I should like to quote from my right honourable friend's final words, in his speech in another place today. He said:
"Our policy in South Arabia has two objectives and can be summarised in a sentence. We intend to withdraw our military forces in an orderly way and to establish an independent South Arabia in January, 1968. To achieve these objectives we have approached the problem in its many and related aspects. The Federal Government are providing in the new constitution for the creation of a broader-based Government and evolution towards a democratic society. This will proceed, and we hope that the U.N. will be able to help in the process.
"In our efforts to establish a strong and representative Government we shall continue to make every reasonable effort to talk with all those, inside and outside South Arabia, who wish to co-operate in providing for the future of their country. An essential step to this is a further effort to restore the rule of law, and I have outlined some of the measures, both by way of conciliation and firmness, which we would propose to take. This will, not least, hearten the British civil and business community, who have done so much in the most difficult circumstances for the administration and economy of South Arabia, and of whom many expect to stay on after Independence. At the same time we have decided greatly to increase the very considerable support we have already promised to the South Arabian Government to enable them to defend their Independence by additions to the strength of the South Arabian Armed Forces and by the provision of a powerful deterrent against external aggression for as long as we judge necessary for South Arabia to establish itself as a free and independent nation.
"Whatever detailed criticisms the House may have, I hope"—
this is my right honourable friend, and I agree with him—
"they will agree that the package of measures I have announced to-day demonstrates the determination of Her Majesty's Government to make every effort to bring our objectives about. In the last resort the success and stability of an independent South Arabia will depend on the people of Arabia themselves, and we are determined to help them in that task."
4.26 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it seems to me, if I may say so, quite right that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is in effect the author of the proposals which he has just outlined to your Lordships' House, should have the opportunity of telling us at first hand what they are, and indeed an opportunity of answering any questions your Lordships might like to put. I for one would like to thank him for the very careful Statement he has made to the House this afternoon.
I have never disguised from noble Lords opposite that I have very strongly criticised and disapproved of their policy towards the South Arabian Federation, and I say regretfully that by the decisions which they took two years ago they themselves contributed a great deal to the troubles which have taken place there. But having said that (this is a long Statement that needs to be studied, and I do not want to make a speech about it) I must add that it seems to me that the Statement is a considerable advance on what the Government have said they were prepared to do in the last two years, and particularly an advance in the defence field. In other fields I think that the Statement is a little bit vaguer, and I understand why. For instance, I am not at all sure exactly what the proposed Constitution is going to be. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, can give us any indication of that, or whether he was intentionally vague because it was still a matter of consultation within the Federation. But the Statement does not get us very far on that line.
There are certain aspects of it on which I feel inclined to be critical, but I am not going to be so this afternoon, since we shall have an opportunity later to debate this when we discuss the Bill on Aden. It is very difficult to know how the events of the last month in the Middle East are going to affect the situation in Aden. It could well be that the situation will be much easier, since Egyptian troops have been pulling out of the Yemen, and certainly from that point of view there may be less overt pressure on Aden. It could be, however, that as a result of the events of the last month or so subversion may be stepped up in Aden because of the untruths which have been told about

1203
Imperialists and Anglo-American aggression and so on. It is too early to know what will emerge there. Certainly I think what the noble Lord has told us about defence matters and what the Government are prepared to do after the beginning of 1968 will greatly help in that matter.
There is just one thing I should like to add, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, thinks this is one of my hobbyhorses. I said, with quite remark-able foresight, when we had a Statement on the Middle East the other day, that the Government were always relying on aircraft carriers. I said that I should not be a bit surprised if they did not rely on aircraft carriers when they decided to leave Aden. And so it has proved. I greatly wish that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the Government will once and for all realise that if they intend to keep a presence around the world, air power deployed from the sea is going to be essential; and I hope that the noble Lord will say something to encourage us to believe that the Government have at long last learned that lesson. As I say, particularly in the defence field, I think this Statement is a step forward, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has in the last two months done a typically courageous and forthright job. As for the rest of the Statement, I think we should reserve judgment until we have read it more carefully and perhaps have an opportunity of debating it when the Bill comes before us.
4.31 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, may I say that in general we, too, welcome the new policy of the Government, as I think it might be called, with regard to Aden as giving evidence certainly of new thinking and of a much more flexible approach. I think it is only natural that it should be so, if I may respectfully say so, given the fact that men of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan are now grappling with this terrible problem.
We agree with the conception that independence should be granted at a specific date in the fairly near future; and that, for a period following that, defence against external aggression should be provided by the means suggested. We en
1204
tirely agree also, in principle, with the idea of an independent State for Aden, which I think is rather a new idea. We think, too, that the measures contemplated in regard to the Eastern States, and the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion are most constructive and wise steps in the present circumstances. Nevertheless, we have grave doubts whether the Federation, as such, will be able to exist for long, even given these measures. We have doubts in view of the obvious acute differences both in the nature and in the development of Aden and of the sheikhly States which compose the majority of the Federation.
But, having said that, may I just ask three questions of the noble Lord? In the first place, what do the Government think are the chances of the new régime for Aden being accepted by the member States of the Federation; and what happens if, by any chance, they are not accepted? In the second place, is it the intention—I suppose it is—to afford our military assistance for six months only by a sort of unilateral declaration on our part; or are the Federal Government to be a party to this action by ourselves, to agree in it, and to be in a position to say whether they want it to be extended or not to have it at all? That seems to me to be an important question to be resolved. Lastly, after independence would it be theoretically possible for either the Federation or the independent State of Aden to apply for membership of the United Nations?
4.34 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it may be helpful if I deal first with the points just raised. First of all, on the subject of the Constitution, the process is that this is submitted to all the member States for approval within a certain period, and Her Majesty's Government's responsibility is in relation to Aden, of which the High Commission is at the moment the Government. This will subsequently, assuming that it is agreed—and I think there is a good chance that it will be—be the subject of an Affirmative Order in Parliament. At that moment the Constitution will be freely available. The reason I did not go into the detail of the document, although I have read it three times, and in its amended form, is that it is fairly lengthy. It is satisfactory, but there are of course certain aspects

1205
which in this situation cannot be wholly satisfactory. None the less, it represents a great advance and will, I hope, help to remove the charge, all too often made, and sometimes unfairly made, that the Federal Government, which I prefer to call the South Arabian Government, is purely in the possession of Sheikhly stooges. I might add that a Sheikh or a Sultan cannot survive for long without the support of his people. But I will not go into the sociology of South Arabia. None the less, it is a more modern Constitution.
In relation to the future of the Middle East and events there, it is, of course, very difficult to be precise. If it were not for the fact that my Statement would have been made longer, I should have tried to set it in the Middle East background. But I would say to the noble Lord that it is too early to foresee what is happening. One of the extraordinary consequences of the "big lie", and of its successful dissemination, is that at the moment there is, if anything, more pro-Nasser feeling, and even those who are critical of his particular brand of nationalism are finding it difficult to speak out. I should prefer to say no more on that subject, except that events may reveal that later the heat will come off a bit in the Yemen. Present signs are not in this direction, however, and therefore we must be prepared to meet the position. This is not to suggest that I or my right honourable friend are not sympathetic to concepts of Arab nationalism.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was unable to resist referring to the carriers. Let me say, both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the six-months period is determined not by some date agreed by the Federal Government, but by the difficulties in regard to maintaining even a carrier force of limited size, which can be a heavy strain on the Fleet. But I would not doubt the value of it. However, I will not be drawn by the noble Lord to-day into discussing the carrier force, because I would do nothing to weaken the significance of this as a deterrent. Of course, one of the reasons for stationing the V-bombers there is not only to supplement, but so that they go on for a longer period. They are not limited to six months, and it will be for Her Majesty's Government to decide how
1206
much longer they should in fact remain. I hope that I have answered all the noble Lord's questions; if so, I am most grateful for what he has said.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, there was the one question on the United Nations.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is certainly the hope that the independent country of South Arabia will be recognised and will become a member of the United Nations. How soon this will happen I do not know; but it is the intention that it should. When it has a more broadly based and democratic Government, we hope that it will be accepted as a fully-fledged member of the United Nations. But I should not like to forecast when this will come about, or what will be happening in the United Nations during the next few days.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in warmly welcoming my noble friend's Statement, may I make just two comments? First of all, he has referred to what he calls the "big lie", and we all know the consequences throughout the Arab world of these grotesque statements. May I make this suggestion for consideration? In addition to the preparations for aircraft carriers, V-bombers and so on on the military side, would it not be useful to invite the United Nations to provide a number of observers to survey the border between the Yemen and the South Arabian State, so that it will make it difficult for the Arab world eventually to accuse either the South Arabian Government or our own forces of starting any hostilities that may perhaps ensue? I should like to suggest that that be considered.
The other point is with reference to my noble friends' statement that the ban on the National Liberation Front has been lifted. Is it intended to organise a constitutional conference to which representatives of the National Liberation Front might be invited, in addition to a representative of U Thant or the United Nations itself, so that such a conference might well be held under the ægis of the United Nations, as was the case with the Geneva conferences in 1952 to 1954 with reference to South East Asia?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord's hopes in the United Nations, and I wish

1207
that they would bear fruit, but at the moment I am not very hopeful that the United Nations would be willing to take responsibility on the South Arabian frontier. But obviously an effective United Nations presence could largely solve all our problems. Indeed, I should have thought that the chances of calling a conference of the National Liberation Front, FLOSY, SAL and the others—let us not assume that those who practise violence are the only patriots; there are other patriotic people in South Arabia—would be immeasurably increased if the United Nations were to do this. I should prefer not to speculate too much on the prospects, beyond saying that it certainly is the wish of Her Majesty's Government that we should look to the United Nations; but we cannot afford to look for ever to the United Nations, and there are decisions which must be taken now.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend did not wish to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that we should call the conference, but that we should invite the United Nations to send a representative, and that this might well be under the ægis of the United Nations but not necessarily called by the United Nations.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry. There are a number of variations. My only fear is that we shall not succeed in calling such a conference unless the United Nations actually sponsor it. None the less, this is certainly one of the ideas, and indeed is a main idea, which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has put forward and with which we shall try to press on.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, are we to understand from something the Minister let drop in the course of his speech that he found clear evidence that poison gas has been used in this campaign and that it was used by the Egyptians? We have read about this in the Press, but I am inclined to think that this is the first official statement that that has in fact been done.
LORD SHACKLETON: Poison gas has been used in the Yemen, and there have been reports of this for a considerable period. Recently, the International Red Cross themselves investigated such an in
1208
cident and in fact confirmed the gas. It is uncertain what it may be, whether it is mustard gas or phosgene. Let no one delude themselves about the methods which have been used over a period in the Yemen. This is a particular source of fear because this would be a device which in certain circumstances could be made to terrorise people in the States up-country who otherwise would be prepared to resist aggression. I hope that it will never come about, and I hope also that publicity will be given to this.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend whether it is not possible for us to have a powerful radio—a kind of pirate radio—which could dispel some of these lies which are put out in the Middle East about us, and why we cannot have a greater propaganda in that part of the world.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not understand how it is we are not able to combat these lies. Some people seem to be cleverer than us and the Americans. But I sympathise with the noble Lady, for I attach great importance to explaining our position at every opportunity, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary feels the same.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should like to follow my noble Leader in congratulating the noble Lord on the critical and helpful part he has played in the relative conversion of Government policy. I think noble Lords on both sides of the House can congratulate themselves on the natural prescience they showed in affirming their confidence in the noble Lord as being the man for the job, as expressed in our debate on May 2. We are grateful to him and we hope that his efforts will produce results.
I should like to ask him one or two brief questions which I feel are very pertinent at the moment. I would ask when the eight Hunters and other sophisticated equipment which are being given to the Federal forces will be delivered and particularly when the training will be completed, because it is of importance to them to know when these will become useful. I am also encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, to ask a question about the B.B.C. broadcasts. As I understood the noble Lady, she asked

1209
a question about a pirate radio station. I would not suggest that a pirate radio station would be necessary, but what I should like the noble Lord to do is to do his best to restore the cuts made four months ago in B.B.C. Arabic broadcasts, cuts which seemed very unnecessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to discuss the military equipment in too much detail, because the Ministry of Defence have only just had time enough to think about them and to say that they were possible, and they have to be examined in detail. I understand that the Hunters are likely to be Hunters which are already out there and which would otherwise be disbanded. The real difficulty will be in operating and getting contract pilots for them. Having flown twice over South Arabia in a Hunter, I would say that it is a fighter ground attack pilot's paradise for operations, whether he fires his guns or not. As regards the B.B.C., I can only say that I have noted what the noble Lord has said. I also did not quite understand the proposition about a pirate radio.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Pirate off the peninsula, not one of our pirate radio stations.

CIVIC AMENITIES BILL
4.48 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Procedure for making building preservation orders]:
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 9, is a purely drafting Amendment. It merely reflects a slight difference between English and Scottish land legislation.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, after ("occupier") insert ("and in Scotland also on any lessee").—(The Earl of Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Penalties
15.—(1) In relation to an offence of cutting down or wilfully destroying a tree, or of topping or lopping a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it, being an offence committed after the commencement of this Act, section 62(1) of the Planning Act and section 26(6) of the Scottish Planning Act (enforcement of tree preservation orders) shall have effect as if for the words "fifty pounds" there were substituted the words "two hundred and fifty pounds or twice the sum which appears to the court to be the value of the tree, whichever is the greater.
LORD MOLSONmoved, in subsection (1), after "it" to insert "or its character". The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 at the same time. This is intended to be a probing Amendment to satisfy myself that the clause will include instances where trees, without being positively destroyed, will be pollarded or lopped in an unsightly manner. It can be almost as destructive of the amenities of a place if pollarding is done in an unsightly manner. I am not claiming that this is a well-drafted Amendment, but I want to make sure that as far as possible any surgery on trees of this kind shall be done in accordance with the British Standards which have been laid down.
The Parliamentary Secretary in another place in Standing Committee spoke about the extremely valuable work which has been done by the British Standards Institution in describing exactly how work of this kind had been done. He undertook that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would do all it could to ensure that lopping and pollarding of trees was done in this way. It seemed to me, therefore, that it might be convenient to provide that if it were done in accordance with the principles laid down by the British Standards Institution it should be deemed that no offence was committed. I think it is important, while we are legislating on this subject, to make certain not only that trees are not wantonly destroyed, but that they are not mutilated in an unsatisfactory manner. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, after ("it") insert ("or its character").—(Lord Molson.)
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he moved his Amendment. I am sympathetic with its object, but I think there is a difficulty here. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that one can apply surgery to a tree which will totally destroy its value, a tree which has been worthy of tree preservation order. If ineffective or inefficient surgery has been applied it may thereafter be worth a tree preservation order. In that respect I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord. I would agree with him, too, that his Amendment may be technically defective. As something of a layman in these matters, it seems to me to be defective in that he says, "destroy it or its character". Of course, that is bound to happen if you are going to cut the tree down, and the noble Lord's Amendment applies to the cutting down as well as to the topping or lopping of it. But that is by the way.
LORD MOLSON: It may be possible to destroy the character of the tree without destroying the tree.
EARL JELLICOE: That is perfectly so. As I read the noble Lord's Amendment it applies to the cutting down as well as to the topping or lopping. If you are destroying the tree, which is the cutting down, you must ipso facto be destroying its character, and I grant that it bites also on the second part. It may be a technical defect or it may not. I think the substance of the Amendment poses a difficulty. It talks of destroying the character of a tree. I myself find it extremely difficult to know how one is to be able to define the character of a tree. It is difficult enough when one destroys or changes the character of a person; and I should have thought that it is equally difficult in the case of a tree. I feel that this wording would give rise to great difficulties of interpretation. I feel that the clause as it stands probably goes about as far as it is possible to go at this stage. I know that it is the product of a great deal of very careful cogitation and deliberation between the sponsors of the Bill in another place and the Government, and I should have thought, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may say, that we would probably be wise to leave it as it stands at the present time, bearing in mind the very clear assurance which was given by the Minister in another place about the
1212
British Standards, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has quite rightly referred. He made it clear that he was quite prepared to bring this British Standard to the attention of local authorities in a positive manner. I should have thought that to a very large extent this would meet the noble Lord's point in substance. I am inclined to believe that we would be wise in this respect to proceed by regulation rather than by legislation, but I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may say on this point.
4.55 p.m.
LORD KENNET: We so fully sympathise with the purpose of this Amendment that we had a jolly good look at it, together with our legal advisers, and we ran into the difficulty of how you define "character" and, conversely, how you define "mutilate". On reflection it seemed that it would be creating too much difficulty for the courts to face them with either of those two words. That is the Amendment before the House at the moment. The next Amendment, which hangs with it, has the disadvantage that it puts the British Standards Institution into an Act of Parliament. It makes the law dependent on the standards set down by a body which is not under the control of Parliament. We found no precedent for this, and were doubtful of the desirability of writing the standards which may be developed by that institution, admirable as it is, into the wording of an Act of Parliament.
Having said all that, I would agree with the noble Earl that this matter of spoiling the trees without actually killing them is something which is best pursued by exhortation, possibly by circular or even regulation, by education both of local authorities and to the owners of trees and tree doctors, rather than by any attempt to lay down hard and fast rules in the body of an Act of Parliament. So while I accept 100 per cent. the noble Lord's purpose in moving this Amendment, I would agree with the noble Earl that it might be better if he were to agree to withdraw it on this occasion.
LORD FARINGDON: I hope my noble friend may reconsider his decision on this particular point. Shocking mutilation takes place on trees all over the country, and I feel that something stronger is

1213
required. With great respect, I should have thought that the difficulties had been largely met by taking the British Standards as a basis for criticism and approval. I hope the noble Lord will give this matter further attention, because it is of the essence of the amenity of our countryside and towns.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I agree both with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. There is nothing I hate more than a tree lopped in such a manner as completely to destroy its beauty. This is so often done. My noble friend the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, seemed to me to be saying that they were going to bring very forcefully to the notice of the local authorities the British Standards publication and the standards set out in that publication. We are trying to get at the owner of the tree rather than the local authority. Somehow we must get at the man who owns the tree in order to prevent him carrying out the mutilation which we all hate.
Although there may be some objection to the drafting I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that it may be possible for the legal brains in the department concerned to find some way of ensuring that any owner of a tree who destroys its beauty in this manner should be liable to a suitable penalty. I hope my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will look at this again between now and Report stage, if the noble Lord, Lord Molson, decides to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope very much that the noble Earl will look at this between now and the Report stage, because it is not quite so difficult a matter as I think both he and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made out. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, gave one good example of how a tree can be mutilated, that of pollarding it. But there are others. Supposing in the case of a conifer it was cut about 15 or 20 feet above the ground, that would mutilate it for life but would not kill it, and it might live for 30 or 40 years. Equally, with either a conifer or a hardwood, if the owner was in a spiteful mood and cut off all the branches on one side, it would make it look perfectly ridiculous. I think
1214
it would be your Lordships' wish that something should be incorporated in the Bill which would make this sort of thing at least more difficult, if not impossible.
LORD LEATHERLAND: On the Second Reading of this Bill I seem to recall I proclaimed myself a very dedicated tree-lover, and I still am. My back garden leads into Epping Forest, and I see in Epping Forest thousands and thousands of trees that were pollarded sixty or seventy years ago, with the result that the whole character of the forest has been radically altered. In fact, as this Amendment might have said, it has almost been robbed of its character in certain areas.
But I believe there are very great difficulties in accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, which has been supported in various parts of the Committee. I think the furthest we can go at this moment is to stand by the clause as it is now drawn, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, urges us to do. A difficulty which I see about accepting the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is this. Let us imagine the case of some ancient oak on a blasted heath which has been proclaimed to be an historic tree which must be retained. Let us assume, as is so frequently the case, that the branches die and become dangerous, and that it is absolutely essential for public safety to lop off the branches, leaving the trunk as the historic monument that it will be for, perhaps, centuries to come. Under the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the character of that tree will have been destroyed, and somebody will have been rendered liable to prosecution.
As I say, I should like to see the spirit of this Amendment somehow embodied in this legislation, but like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I do not see that this Amendment would have that effect. If, between now and the next stage, it is possible to devise some form of words midway between the two versions which will ensure what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is aiming at, I shall be as pleased as any noble Lord in the Committee.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I hope that the Government will look very carefully at this matter. I live in Suffolk, not far away from where the last speaker lives, and there is no doubt that large parts of

1215
East Suffolk are becoming almost like Canadian prairies. Within some 500 or 600 yards of where I live about 30 acres of trees have been demolished in the last 12 to 15 months. Hedgerow trees are virtually non-existent. It may well be that in some way the existing law protects trees, but there seems to be an unwillingness, if I may say so, on the part of county councils to exercise their rights to preserve trees. I do not know how this situation, which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and other noble Lords have mentioned to-day, can be dealt with effectively. But I would plead with Her Majesty's Government to look at this matter in such a way that whatever else we do, we preserve as many trees as possible, and see that there is more adequate provision made whereby county councils can be called upon to exercise their rights more effectively than I think they are doing at the present moment.
LORD KENNET: With the leave of the Committee—
LORD CHAMPION: It is not necessary.
LORD KENNET:—I should like to intervene with one more explanation on this matter. I think we are losing sight of the shape of the discussion here. Before this Bill was introduced there was a penalty, under Section 61(1) of the Planning Act, for doing certain things to protected trees. The Bill, as it comes before your Lordships' Committee un-amended, separates two types of offences: what we may call major offences—that is, destroying or causing the destruction of a tree—and minor offences, which include the lopping of protected trees; and it then increases five-fold the maximum penalties for the major offence while leaving the penalties for the minor offence as they were. The effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would be to transfer an act affecting the character of a tree from the category of minor offences, where the penalty is unchanged, into the category of major offences, where the penalty is increased five times. So what we are discussing is whether or not to count the lopping of a tree as a major offence instead of a minor offence, as it would re-remain if the Bill were unamended.
LORD MOLSON: I think that the second intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary has been most helpful. There is no doubt that the discussion has gone a little beyond the scope of my Amendment, but that has really served only to demonstrate how widespread, in all parts of your Lordships' Committee, is the concern about the preservation of trees—concern not merely about their total destruction, but also about their mutilation.
In view of what has been said by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee about the importance of this matter, I hope that the noble Earl who is sponsoring the Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary will do their best between now and Report stage to devise a form of words which will give effect to what we all have in mind. I am fully aware of the difficulty of the task. Naturally, my own failure to devise such a form of words makes me sympathise with those who come afterwards and try to do it better than I have done. But that is what Parliamentary counsel are there to do, and I have confidence that they will not allow themselves to be frustrated in giving effect to what is quite obviously the wish of the Committee as a whole. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment; and I shall not be moving my second Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Procedure for making tree preservation orders]:
EARL JELLICOE: As I explained when speaking to a similar Amendment, No. 6, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 42, after ("occupiers") insert ("and in Scotland also on lessees").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Provision of refuse dumps]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: Having arranged debates on the subject of dumping several times in the last few years, I naturally

1217
have a great sympathy with the clauses in this Bill which seek to cure this unfortunate disease from which our countryside suffers. But I should like to make a few remarks as to their likely efficacy before we part with them. In the course of my wanderings it has appeared to me that there are really three sorts of waste which tend to find themselves alongside our country roads.
First of all, there is the waste from the largish firms. Only once or twice have I ever come across anything that looked like such waste, but I have come across an awful lot of dumping which I believed was probably surplus mess from small garages, decorators, building firms and the like. Then, of course, there is obviously a certain amount of private dumping, which is evidenced by such things as mattresses, pianos and the like. The solution provided by the Bill is: free tips for the private people, and charges for the trade. But one must always remember that the tips may be quite a long way away, and that very often they will be further away than the country lanes. Therefore it will remain much easier for a private tipper, or even the small firm, if they are tipping the smaller or medium-sized item such as tin cans, sacks of paper, bottles, beds—and even the piano—to tip on a dark night. When we come to cars—and these are the things that get all the publicity—we come to a special case. In many cases, the cars which I have seen dumped have been fairly well stripped, from which one can conclude that they have been in the hands of some small scrap dealer, who has taken out anything of value and has then dumped them by the wayside. Of course, they could not have been driven under their power, because he has taken out the important parts. There are, too, some purely private cars; they give one the impression that they are just cars that have died and will not go any further. The person who owns such a car will not be able to get it to the municipal tip.
The only perfect solution would be not only free collection, but frequent collection, because my experience leads me to believe that it is the infrequency of the collections which the local authorities are able to make that is the principal cause of dumping. Collection should be free, both for the private individual and for the trader. I do not want anybody
1218
to point out the difficulties to me. I know them, and they are immense. All I would say is that in my view the solution put forward in the Bill, which is perhaps the only solution the Government could put forward, in the light of their position vis-à-vis the local authorities, will not do a great deal to cure this evil.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Penalty for unauthorised dumping]:
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with, and paves the way for, Amendment No. 11. It is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 6, leave out from ("abandons") to ("on") in line 7.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOEmoved, in subsection (1)(a), after "highway" to insert:
"a motor vehicle or anything which formed part of a motor vehicle and was removed from it in the course of dismantling the vehicle on the land ".
The noble Earl said: As I have just said, I think this Amendment is best considered with the previous Amendment to which the Committee have agreed. Since it is a little complicated to visualise the effect of three Amendments to this clause, I think it might be helpful if I were to read the start of Clause 19 as it would read incorporating Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and the following Amendment (No. 12). It would begin:
"Any person who, without lawful authority—

(a) abandons on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway a motor vehicle or anything which formed part of a motor vehicle and was removed from it in the course of dismantling the vehicle on the land; or

(b) abandons on any such land anything other than a motor vehicle, being a thing which he has brought to the land for the purpose of abandoning it there, shall be guilty of an offence …"

and so on. That is how the amended clause, if agreed to, would read. The present wording,
"a motor vehicle, or any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle"
was inserted at the Report stage in another place, in an attempt to bring within the scope of this Part of the Bill

1219
the abandonment of the carcase of a vehicle—that is, what remains when the vehicle is broken up. It could not have been caught by the original wording of the Bill. That is why the words "or any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle" came into the Bill.
It was pointed out in another place that a person who went for a picnic in the countryside in his car, who had not noticed that by mischance his windscreen wiper had dropped off, and who had left it on the land and driven away, would, technically, have committed an offence and would have been liable to the quite severe penalties in the first part of Clause 19. That was clearly rather unsatisfactory. I, too, felt that the words, "any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle" were extraordinarily wide. That is why the rather narrower phraseology has been brought in, which I think materially improves and tightens the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, after ("highway") insert ("a motor vehicle or anything which formed part of a motor vehicle and was removed from it in the course of dismantling the vehicle on the land").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.17 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment is really consequential upon the two Amendments to which the Committee have just agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 10, leave out ("other thing whatsoever") and insert ("thing other than a motor vehicle, being a thing").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: When we were debating this Bill on Second Reading I recalled the experience I have had, as a motorist, of seeing twenty vehicles abandoned on twenty miles of road. I have since learned that had I digressed from that for half-a-mile I could have seen another ten within a few hundred yards. It is very desirable that something should be done about this evil. But I also recall that on Second Reading we had some discussion about the word "thing" which finds a place in the phraseology of this particular clause. I think that some noble Lords were not quite happy about the inclusion of that
1220
word and suggested some other alternative word might be appropriate. The word "thing" refers to animate objects as well as to inanimate objects. I wonder whether that is really what is intended by the promoter of this Bill.
The Oxford Dictionary gives as one meaning of the word "thing", the word "creature", and I suppose that most of us are creatures and are hardly likely perhaps to be dumped in the ditch at the side of an arterial road. The Oxford Dictionary also defines "thing" as being "an entity of any kind; a being, including a person". If we search the pages of the poets we find many references to persons being described as "things". Shelley said:
"I wish no living thing to suffer pain".
He was referring to an animate object, not to an inanimate object. Another of our poets said:
"He that getteth a good wife, getteth a good thing".
That statement might be open to debate on its merits, but nevertheless "thing" is established, and we look to the poets, as the sources of inspiration of our language, that "thing" may be something that is living; it may be an actual human being. There is another of our poets who said:
"A goodly dame is an ideal thing".
I am quite sure that that would be corroborated by anybody who from time to time reads the news about Hollywood.
Then there was a critic at a play, some hundreds of years ago, who said that he was:
"looking at a young thing in a box before us".
Whatever we may think of his conduct, he has again established that a living person can properly be described as a "thing". If we come to more recent days, Dickens is known to have said to someone:
"You stupid thing".
There is another of our great writers who said of someone that he was:
"the youngest thing I have ever seen in an Eton jacket."
So I think it is established that the word "thing" does mean a living person.
In a discussion with a group of people not long ago, one man inquired of another about the state of health of his mother-in-law. The other man said, "Oh, that silly old thing." If that gentleman

1221
had taken his aforementioned mother-in-law along an arterial road and abandoned her in a ditch then, in accordance with the phraseology of this clause, he would have been liable to a very big fine, although probably he was performing a very valuable social service.
It may be suggested that this is a facetious line of argument, but I ask your Lordships to accept the view that it is a serious one. The task of interpreting the legislation will fall on the High Court Judges. They will have to decide what is meant by the word "thing". That may confront them with an almost insoluble problem. During the past week High Court Judges decided that a salary had been paid although it had not been paid, so when they have to wrestle with the interpretation of the word "thing" in this legislation I fear that they may find themselves up against more difficulty. All that I have said, ridiculous though it may sound, suggests the need for very great precision in the words we use in this clause.
LORD KIRKWOOD: As I was the person who brought up this point on Second Reading, may I say that I am in complete sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. I do not think that "thing" is a precise enough word to use. Would the noble Earl accept "something", and would he feel that a "thing" had been obliterated by "something", which was something of a greater personality?
LORD KENNET: If the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, without lawful authority, were to abandon a "goodly dame" or a "sweet little thing" or a "stupid old thing"
"on any land in the open air or on any land forming part of a highway"
two things could happen. Either the sweet little thing would walk away, in which case she would no longer be abandoned, or she would not be in a condition to walk away, in which case she would indeed he abandoned, and the noble Lord might find himself convicted under other provisions than those in this Act.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord flatters me.
EARL FORTESCUE: We have heard strong arguments about the need to include animate objects. I hope that the
1222
Minister will be able to include in the Bill something to deal with the inhuman practice of some people of abandoning their dogs.
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has given me a little food for thought. I have a feeling that probably the fears which he has voiced about the precise legal meaning which this phraseology is likely to bear, are not well founded. Nevertheless, in view of what he has said I should like to look at the words to assure myself that they will not catch fathers, mothers-in-law, wives and the rest. The word "object" might be a better word to use in this respect. I hope that the assurance which I gladly give to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland (that I should like to have another look at the precise phraseology and if necessary take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the Parliamentary draftsmen) will persuade the noble Lord, and others who share his views, to permit this Amendment to be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.25 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: In this part the Bill follows the usual form. When society dislikes something it increases the penalties, brushes the thing under the carpet, and hopes that it has done its best. Unless you provide alternatives to the offence, and make certain you get the people who commit the offence, you are really no "forrarder". Clause 18(2) states that local authorities are allowed to discriminate about what they will or will not take on a refuse tip. Motorcars are extremely unpleasant to deal with at a tip, and unless it is quite certain that local authorities are to have facilities for the disposal of old motor cars it will be extremely difficult to stop people abandoning cars.
If we want to catch the people who abandon cars, I suggest the following course of action, which would make it more difficult for them to get away with committing the offence. In the log book of a motor car there appear the index number, the engine number and the chassis number. It is fairly easy to trace the owner of a car by the index number, but it is extremely difficult to do so by means.

1223
of the engine or the chassis number. It can be done, but it takes a tremendous amount of manpower. I suggest that we should set up a central computer and feed into it the three numbers of all the cars in the country. If a car is abandoned, the owner could be traced in a few seconds by means of these numbers. The intelligent and clever person will, of course, remove all three numbers from the vehicle, but that would entail a lot of bother, and in some cases the owner might decide that it would be worth while to hand over the vehicle at a legitimate place, rather than leave it on the side of the road. But unless facilities for disposal are available, and you succeed in catching the people, these punishment clauses will be of no avail.
LORD KENNET: The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there are facilities for disposal. The point made by the noble Lord about a computer service will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport.
LORD HAWKE: Can the Minister enlarge on the provision in Clause 18(2) which so far as I can see would allow local authorities to opt out of taking any form of refuse at their tips they like?
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord will notice that the clause also contains the words
"… without prejudice to the generality of their duty under subsection (1) …"
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I raise a small point in relation to this clause? Subsection (1)(a) limits the application of the provisions to a vehicle abandoned on the highway, or "on any land in the open air". I imagine that my noble friend, when drafting the Bill, was primarily concerned with protecting the amenities of our pleasant land, as the Title indicates. I wish to call attention to the benefit which would flow from extending the provisions of the subsection to enclosed premises, such as off-street car parks and motor agents' premises, where motor cars are also abandoned. This problem of the abandoned motor car is with us in many forms, and I am sure that if the provisions could be extended a little further it would be to the general interest.
A survey conducted recently by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and
1224
Traders revealed that over 2,000 motor vehicles were abandoned in such premises as those to which I have referred, some for as long as three years. Under the existing law there is no way to deal with this aspect of the problem, other, I suppose, than taking the vehicle and dumping it on the highway, which would bring the person concerned within the scope of the Bill. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would consider widening the clause a little to include such premises as I have indicated, with consequential amendment to Clause 20 as well. Such an Amendment would seem to be within the Long Title of the Bill and I should have thought it would not in any way prejudice the rest of it. I think that it would be most helpful if the noble Lord would look at this point between now and Report stage, and if he finds it acceptable perhaps I could put down an Amendment to that effect.
LORD KENNET: I will look at the point. At first blush it strikes me as open to question, because parking places and garages are usually private property. Garages are institutions run at a profit for the very purpose of receiving motor cars. If one takes a car to a garage and then goes away and never comes back, that seems to me a risk that a garage proprietor might properly reckon he has to run in the course of his everyday business. The proprietor then has to take the car away to one of the dumps provided by the local authority. If one takes a car to a roadside or a nearby farmer's field, then goes away and is never seen again, one is inflicting a wrong on the generality of the public, because a highway belongs to the public and the abandoned car looks horrible, and the farmer is not running his farm as a place where people can take their cars.
LORD RAGLAN: It has struck me that the responsibility and the expense of the removal of a vehicle devolve entirely on the local authority under the next clause. An owner can be fined for abandoning a vehicle, but he is not obliged to remove it. Is there not something of a gap in the Bill here? If an owner is found, would he not be obliged to remove an abandoned vehicle at his own expense?
EARL JELLICOE: I found the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, used in reply to my noble friend

1225
fairly convincing. It seems to be going rather far to place a mandatory obligation upon local authorities to remove these vehicles at their own expense. Nevertheless, I would be willing to consider this question further with my noble friend, though in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said I feel doubtful about holding out much hope that we shall be able to devise a form of words which would meet him.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Removal of abandoned vehicles
(2) Where it appears to a local authority that the land on which a motor vehicle is abandoned as aforesaid is occupied by any person, the authority shall give him notice in the prescribed manner that they propose to remove the vehicle in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section but shall not be entitled to remove it if he objects to the proposal in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period; and a local authority shall not be required by virtue of subsection (1) of this section to remove a vehicle situated otherwise than on a carriageway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959 if it appears to them that the cost of its removal would he unreasonably high.
5.33 p.m.
LORD RAGLANmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "the prescribed period". The noble Lord said: This is only a probing Amendment. There was some discussion in another place on this part of Clause 20. Although I do not wish to be too hard on local authorities, it seems to me that this part of the clause might be too wide an escape route and might be used too often as an excuse for doing nothing. Perhaps I could point out that in the 1959 Highways Act there is no definition of a carriageway—at any rate, none that I could find—or even a definition of highway. That may lead to some argument, but not to insurmountable difficulties. I shall be interested to hear what is said in regard to this part of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("period") to end of line 2 on page 15.—(Lord Raglan.)
LORD KENNET: On the question of definition I am informed that under Section 295 of the Highways Act 1959 "carriageway", means:
"a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track)
1226
over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles".
The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be that local authorities would have an absolute obligation to remove all abandoned motor vehicles, without any exception whatever, from any land, regardless of how much it might cost them. We have to think of the kind of thing that might happen. A car might go off a mountain road and plunge 600 ft. down into a deep ravine covered with impenetrable trees and thickets, under which it could not be seen by anybody where it lay and out of which it could not be taken, except perhaps by using an A-bomb. In such a case, it would be unreasonable to require an authority to remove it. We rest on the provision of the next Amendment, to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, which will do something to enlarge the scope of the obligation laid upon local authorities in this respect in comparison with what it was when the Bill left the other place.
LORD RAGLAN: I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I think that we shall have to wait and see how the clause works. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOEmoved, in subsection (2), after "removal" to insert "to the nearest convenient carriageway within the meaning of that Act". The noble Earl said: I feel strongly that we are right to leave local authorities with an area of discretion here, for the sort of reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just adduced. The Bill as it stands contains no definition of what would constitute an unreasonably high cost of removal for a local authority. To a certain extent this is almost an inevitable difficulty, because of the problem of laying down any hard-and-fast criteria in the circumstances. But this Amendment at least narrows the area of doubt by making it clear that an unreasonably high cost would not include the cost of removal from the carriageway.
Under the Bill, local authorities have an absolute duty to remove vehicles which are abandoned on or by the side of the highways. Therefore it seems only

1227
right that they should not be allowed to include the cost of such removal in their assessment of what would amount to an unreasonably high cost. I am the first to admit that this Amendment goes only a small way to meet the sort of point which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has made, but at least it goes some part of the way and I hope that it will satisfy him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 2, after ("removal") insert ("to the nearest convenient carriageway within the meaning of that Act").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD HAWKE: I wonder if my noble friend would tell me exactly how far off the metalled road the highway, under the definition, extends. Unless it goes some distance, I foresee that once again this Bill is going to be pretty useless, because come of these cars are not just off the road but pushed into gaps in the hedge.
EARL JELLICOE: I shall have to take note of the point that my noble friend has made. The only definition of "highway" and "carriageway" is that contained in the Highways Act 1959, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred. My assumption is that it would certainly include the verges, which in the case of motorways like the A.4 can be very wide, but would not include gaps in hedges, which are more likely to be part of the neighbouring field. This is a point on which I should like to check, and perhaps I can communicate with my noble friend between now and Report stage.
LORD HAWKE: I think that it would be a good idea if my noble friend would look into this point in some detail, because many of these vehicles will not be wholly on the highway or wholly off it: they will be half on the highway and half off it. In such cases whose job is it to move them? It is important that it should be laid down.
LORD KENNET: We could be under some misapprehension here. The point of the Bill is to bind local authorities to remove abandoned motor cars, not only from a highway but from any land in the open air. The Amendment says that the only let-up from that duty is if the cost of removing them to the highway is excessive. I do not imagine that removing
1228
them from some hole in the hedge can be held to be excessive.
LORD HAWKE: I am not sure that the noble Lord quite appreciates the difficulty. He will discover that the real difficulty in the case of a field is that local authorities have a large area to clear. They have not the staff or the lorries, and if they can find a valid legal excuse for not touching one of these vehicles they will certainly take it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Disposal of removed vehicles
21.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, the council of a county borough or county district or the Greater London Council may, in such manner as they think fit, dispose of any vehicle which is in their custody in pursuance of section 20 of this Act—
(b) in the case of a vehicle to which a notice was so affixed and on which a current licence was so displayed, at any time after the licence expires;
LORD RAGLANmoved, in subsection (1)(b), after "time" to insert, "after fifteen days". The noble Lord said: As your Lordships know, it is the custom among local licensing authorities and the police to allow a period of 14 days' grace from the time a motor vehicle licence lapses, so that a vehicle is not considered to be unlicensed until 15 days after the expiry of the licence. However, what a local licensing authority does is one thing, and what a local authority charged with the removal or disposal of vehicles may do is another. When a car has been standing in the streets for some months, it is easy to imagine those responsible for its disposal getting so fed up with the thing that they want to pounce on it as soon as they can and cart it away. This Amendment is to prevent a car from being so peremptorily removed. It is a small point, but I hope your Lordships will think it of some importance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, after ("time") insert ("after fifteen days").—(Lord Raglan.)
EARL JELLICOE: I was in some doubt as to the precise point that the noble Lord was on, and I am afraid that I was engaged in conversation with my

1229
neighbour as the noble Lord was moving the Amendment, for which I apologise—we were still, as it were, partly in the hedge. As I understand it, what the noble Lord is anxious to do is to apply to wrecks the 14-day concession which applies to expired licences. I have not been aware of any pressure that this concession should be extended, and I should not have thought that it was necessary. It seems to me that in the case of an abandoned wreck, a complete non-runner, it would be quite unnecessary. If it were included, I should have thought that it ought to be in the runners that I have provided for in the other parts of the Bill.
LORD RAGLAN: This is a case of a runner which is said to be abandoned but is still licensed.
EARL JELLICOE: But the clause on which the noble Lord's Amendment bites applies only to wrecks, and it would seem unnecessary, and indeed unjustifiable, to introduce this requirement in those cases.
LORD RAGLAN: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the position. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Removal and disposal etc. of other refuse]:
EARL JELLICOE: This is mainly a drafting Amendment the purpose of which is to express rather more precisely than is the case at present the intention behind the subsection. As at present drafted, the subsection will apply only to two of the main provisions in the relevant part of the London Government Act 1963. This Amendment means that it will apply to all four. The Amendment also means that an additional provision from Section 76(3)(b) of the Public Health Act 1936 will apply. I do not think I need bother your Lordships (though I should be glad to do so if you so wish), with further comment on what is a highly technical and purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 41, leave out from ("The") to ("shall") in line 45, and insert ("following
1230
provisions (which relate to the deposit and disposal of refuse), that is to say

(a) section 76 of the Public Health Act 1936 (except paragraph (a) of subsection (3));

(b) sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 15 of Part I of Schedule 11 to the London Government Act 1963; and

(c) without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) of section 28 of this Act, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the said paragraph 15 so far as they relate to provisions of the said section 76,".—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. It paves the way for Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 20, leave out subsection (6).—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment, like Nos. 6 and 9, is designed to make provision for the special requirements of Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out from ("may") to ("sell") in line 35 and insert—

("(a) provide places for the deposit of any thing removed by them under subsection (1) of this section;

(b) provide plant and apparatus for the treatment or disposal of any thing deposited at such a place; and

(c)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD LEATHERLAND: The only question I would ask is: do they ever throw anything away in Scotland?
EARL JELLICOE: Not money.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall start part of the Bill?
LORD WEDGWOOD: During the Second Reading debate I spoke on the permissive aspect of Clause 23 (1). I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the actual wording, which is that:
"the authority may if they think fit"
remove the article. I said at the time that I felt a greater direction was needed to impress upon local authorities that there was an urgency in this matter to clear up the countryside. I listened just now to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on mandatory clauses, and the consequent effect on local authorities,

1231
and also to the Minister's remarks on the extra expense involved. However, I feel that at this stage we should consider this matter before passing on to the next clause.
Would it be too much to ask the Minister to give his ideas as to what could be done to provide extra finance in order to facilitate the intention of local authorities, and to encourage them in that intention, to clean up the countryside, which I believe, and I am sure most of your Lordships believe, is a matter of urgency? Could he also give us an indication of the Government's thinking in this matter, and of what could be done to inject into this clause the urgency and direction which I suggest is lacking as it stands at the moment?
LORD KENNET: There are two questions here, and the first is one of injecting urgency into the clause. I understand that the noble Lord is not moving the Amendment, but is content with the wording of the clause as it stands. I believe he would be wrong to think that local authorities themselves are not imbued with a sense of urgency. They welcome the increased powers they ate getting under this Bill. Of course, it costs money to do all the things we are empowering them to do, and to do all the things we are laying a duty on them to do. The Government's thoughts on money for local authorities to do all the useful things they do are of a familiar nature. We wish we could give them more; we wish they themselves could get more by way of rates, without running into public opposition, which would stultify the whole operation. It is a familiar pattern of how much they can receive from the Government and how much they can collect in rates. Except in one or two very special cases, we do not distinguish in our grants to local authorities between one function they fulfil and another.
LORD HAWKE: The point raised by the noble Lord is a very important one and one which I have raised several times in debates on this particular question. The fact of the matter is that rural authorities in the country are going to carry a considerable burden on behalf of urban authorities. From what I have seen, a great deal of the dumping appears to be of stuff that comes from the urban
1232
boundaries, and until there is some method of adjustment the rural authorities are always going to feel that they are paying a lot of money to deal with rubbish that is not theirs; and their resources are not very big.
LORD KENNET: It is for that reason that the Bill empowers local authorities to combine together to make these arrangements. It might typically be an urban authority with a nearby rural authority.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: The way for this Amendment was paved by Amendment No. 17. What has been done is very simple. Under Amendment No. 17, subsection (6) has been removed from Clause 23, and the intention is to insert it as a separate clause after Clause 25. The purpose of that is equally simple. It is that subsection (6) of the existing Clause 23 deals with removal of rubbish which has been deposited perfectly lawfully. The remaining subsections of Clause 23 deal with rubbish abandoned without lawful authority. Because of the discrepancy it was felt better to remove subsection (6) from its existing place and to insert it as a separate clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25 insert the following new clause—
Amendment of 1961 c. 64 s. 34
(". In subsection (1) of section 34 of the Public Health Act 1961 (which provides for the removal by a local authority from a vacant site in a built-up area of an accumulation of rubbish which is seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood) for the words 'on any vacant site in a built-up area an accumulation of rubbish' there shall be substituted the words 'on any land in the open air in their area any rubbish'; and in subsection (2) of that section for the word 'site' there shall be substituted the word 'land'.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Interpretation etc. of Part III):
EARL JELLICOE: If it is in order, I would suggest that this Amendment and Amendment No. 22 are taken together. All that is being done is this. The definition of "the Common Council" is

1233
Being transferred from Clause 26 to Clause 28, which deals with definitions in the Bill as a whole. As "the Common Council" appears in both Part I and Part III of the Bill, this is obviously desirable.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
LORD KENNET: The new clause which I propose provides for the exercise of functions under the Bill in the Isles of Scilly. The Bill as it stands applies to the Scilly Isles, since they are part of England, but no specific authority would be responsible for operating the provisions of the Bill in the Isles. The new clause remedies this defect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
Application to Isles of Scilly
(".—(1) The Minister of Housing and Local Government may, after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly, by order provide that any provision of this Act specified in the order shall apply to the Isles, subject to such modifications as may be so specified, as if the Isles were a separate county or a county district.
(2) The power to make orders conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power to vary or revoke an order under this section by a subsequent order thereunder.")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Interpretation—general]:
EARL JELLICOE: I have already spoken to this Amendment in moving Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 34, at end insert ("'the Common Council' means the Common Council of the City of London").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

TUNNEL MOTORWAYS
5.57 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL LORD POPPLEWELL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering the possibility of providing tunnel motorways in London and conurbation areas. The noble Lord said: My Lords, following Part III of Lord Jellicoe's Bill, which deals with the abandonment of vehicles and other refuse which are cluttering and forming a nuisance on our streets and roads, it is not inappropriate that I open a discussion on this Unstarred Question, attempting to deal with another nuisance. This Question of mine, in drawing attention to the need for underground motorways in London, and probably in other conurbation areas, has some relation to Part III of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the Committee stage of which we have just completed.
All will be aware of the growing, concern in the minds of many people living in London, and also of visitors and business people attending London, about the effects that motorways are likely to have. This concern at the moment is focused on the so-called motorway box principle. This is the only declared motorway that has so far appeared and been launched on densely populated areas and land of relatively high value. It is hard to understand the reason why this should be so. The concern is even greater because it appears that the authors of these proposals—that is, the motorway box proposals—are themselves the only ones with real confidence in them. There remains a considerable body of public opinion—and some of this consists of some of our most experienced planners, people experienced in dealing with traffic problems—who express considerable doubts whether this motorway box principle is the real answer to deal with the additional traffic that is concentrating on London. It necessitates very expensive super highway construction and other features that I will mention in a moment or two.
Two major factors seem to spring from this motorway box. First, this scheme was projected long before the London Traffic Survey was instigated. In the absence of any cohesive, positive road plan for the whole of London something had to be done, and done quickly, and

1235
in my opinion the motorway box originated in that way. Secondly, there was a need for quick action in order to find cheap land, chiefly in public ownership if at all possible, such as disused railway land or slum property which was to be pulled down. The motorway box was to be constructed in accordance with the principle of land being available, or of having upon it properties which were to be demolished, or of already being open space.
What was lost sight of in these proposals was that none of the factors which led to the proposal for a motorway box was decided in accordance with traffic needs and with the demand of a survey and analysis of the traffic problem. I suggest that it was a question of the availability of land rather than of the real traffic problem. Careful thought was given to many of the areas and it was considered that radial roads were needed more quickly and urgently than circumferential roads. The experts have given considerable thought to this matter, and if my contention is correct it will be necessary, in planning for the needs of the future here in London, to provide sufficient and adequate radial roads linking up the whole of this motorway box. Ring roads, whether they be outer or inner ring roads, will certainly not solve the difficult traffic density problem which will undoubtedly grow with the passage of time. This line of approach may provide some local relief, but I suggest to your Lordships that it will be little more than that.
Two excellent volumes of the London Traffic Survey have been produced. Presumably when the third volume is produced it will be based on the plan for motorways and other roads for London, dealing with the conclusions and considerations of the two previously published surveys. In the meantime there is a real lack of final proposals by consultants. In their opinion there is an unhealthy and indecent haste to foist upon the public motorways which no doubt will be admirable feats of engineering but which may well go down in history as one of the greatest planning errors of our time. I think your Lordships must seriously consider this problem. We all know the thrombosis that takes place on the roads of London from time to time. We have
1236
all experienced occasions when traffic has come to a standstill for quite long periods, and we have to analyse the causes for this. We have to visualise not only the 1967 volume of traffic but the volume of traffic that will have built up by the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. By the turn of the century it is expected that traffic will have more than doubled. Therefore it is up to us to plan for the future.
The motorway box was estimated to cost something of the order of £500 million. From the figures that are now appearing it is obvious that this figure of £500 million, even for the motorway box itself, will not be nearly sufficient to meet the cost; the final figures will be far and above that. Strangely enough the figures which are given in regard to costs are usually those that affect the Ministry or the authority concerned with land acquisition and the physical construction of the motorways. The cost as a whole to London—and it may ultimately be extended to other conurbations—has never been shown in these costing figures about which we have heard so much. I suggest to your Lordships that the missing figures which it is our duty to take into consideration are, in addition to the actual costs of land and the construction of the motorways, the cost of the replacement of homes, shops, factories and commercial properties that will have to be torn down in order to meet this need in the 100 square miles of the centre of London. The costs involved here can be far greater than the actual physical construction of the motorway box, and forward planning for dealing with this problem should take this factor into consideration. The task given to the planners in dealing with this urgent traffic problem, ought to be—and must be if we are to use common sense in our line of approach—to take into account all questions of hardship, of traffic flow and of weather conditions.
Is it possible to provide a complete answer to this problem? I suggest that once the principle of underground motorways is accepted it could be extended to meet traffic needs far beyond this century. As I understand the motorway box at the moment, it would sterilise some 5,000 acres of land in Central London. Some 2,000 acres of this would probably be from disused railway land and the

1237
remaining 3,000 acres would be land that could otherwise be used for residential or commercial purposes. In other words, enough land would be taken up by this motorway box principle which, if used for other purposes, could rehouse 300,000 people. These are serious figures, and I think that due note should be taken of them. It is probable that any major motorway solution for central London would, as I have indicated, occupy a further 5,000 acres of land and would mean the demolition of some 85,000 homes of one kind or another.
To be negative in this line of approach of course means very little. I would not have taken up your Lordships' time with my observations if I had not been very impressed with a Paper given to the International Road Federation's Fifth Conference by an eminent planner, Mr. Matthews, and his firm. They have given considerable thought to this. Arising from the papers issued by the International Federation on these planning problems, a short while ago the all-Party Transport Group of both Houses of Parliament invited this gentleman to give them a Paper. Arising from the Paper that he gave at the meeting, which was attended by very large numbers of Members of Parliament, I became very interested and sought further information.
The project put forward by this eminent planning authority was not something he had devised out of his own mind. He had thought of the possible alternative to the motor box, and his firm brought in one or two surveyors, planners, financiers, ventilating engineers, and the whole wide variety of specialists necessary to examine whether such an excavation was feasible or otherwise. Arising from many years study they have come to the conclusion that this below-ground motorway plan is not just an "airy-fairy" idea; it has been worked out in some detail, and they have considered all major requirements. Car parking would be provided in the underground motorways with exits and entrances for both vehicles and vehicle users. This is very important indeed.
The scheme I shall enumerate is a very large, 60-foot diameter, underground motorway, and, quite contrary to the first impression that has been created, it is not for the sole use of commuter cars.
1238
That type of vehicle is expected to use the system extensively, and there would be extensive underground parking arrangements with escalators at conveniently sited places for the owners of the cars to surface and attend their shopping or places of business. In addition, these underground motorways would be ideal for heavy goods vehicular traffic crossing from one side of London to the other and for the express bus services that are necessary. Those of us who give any thought to this matter know how desirable those services are, and we have been pressing London Transport to provide these express bus services. They would pick up at one particular point in London and go to the periphery. These underground motorways would be ideal for that particular type of service, and also the long distance bus coaches.
Heavy goods vehicles needing to get from one quarter of London to another would be able to use these highways. They would be unrestricted, as it were, free from pedestrians and traffic lights. The tunnels would have space within their perimeter to accommodate fast moving monorails. It would be possible —and this scheme has been studied by experts—to provide a monorail system if necessary, and to provide sufficient space for all the services, cables and other public services, that are required to go underground. Space could be provided for all those services, including Post Office services et cetera.
With regard to the cost factor, I think that when my noble friend replies he will be inclined to tell me that, good as this scheme appears to be, the general cost factor is something too great even for the Government to consider at this stage. The cost factor must be considered whether we are considering underground motorways or whether we are considering radial or circumferential roads. I suggest that if we take into consideration all the cost factors that I have enumerated we shall find that the scheme I am bringing to your Lordships' notice may be cheaper than the other scheme, although the estimated cost at the present moment would be something in the region of £1,776 million. This would deal with three underground motorways running north and south, three underground motorways running east and west, and,

1239
as I indicated, adequate parking space. Each of these underground motorways would be able to deal with three lines of traffic. There would be conveniently placed bus stops with escalators coming to the surface. They would take up very little room—indeed they would not take up any room at all in the ten mile area, except those provided for emergency purposes to deal with police, fire or hospital requirements, or something of that description. The savings in dirt, dust, noise, diversion and destruction of homes, must all be taken into due consideration.
Having outlined the tunnel motorway system, might I turn to some of the advantages which I think it would be possible to bring about. It requires only comparatively small areas of land at surface level for exit and entrance points, ventilation towers, pedestrian and escalator entrances and exits. The construction of these would be able to proceed without disrupting existing traffic. The displacement of homes, shops and commercial premises would not arise. Environment, buildings of architectural and historic value would not be touched at all. There would be no question of disruption or anything of that description. The hardship and inconvenience of construction would be negligible. The accumulated investment of centuries, of rateable values and heritage would not be touched at all.
These are important considerations which must be taken into account in planning for our traffic needs. It is probable that some land at present used as roads at surface level could be returned as open spaces, children's playgrounds, and so on. They would link all forms of transport, major traffic generators, business and retail centres, specialised land uses and motorways from outside into the central area. They could provide the most direct route and alignment, uninfluenced by river, surface rail, existing roads or major building complexes, Royal Parks, and so on. They would not interfere with those in any shape or form.
The system could be extended to meet future needs. It would provide the vehicle driver, once he was within the tunnel, with a constant light level and uniform atmospheric conditions. It would
1240
do away with the dangers that all these motorways have, of crossing points and so on from time to time. The motorway route would not divide communities or neighbourhoods—that is a most important point. We all know that the motorways that we build, these important Al roads which are provided for the speeding up of traffic, when they go through our urban areas, our concentrations of human dwellings and shops, separate the two communities completely. They destroy much of the life that is being built in the area, and I suggest this alternative. It would be much easier to administer, because the most advanced technological and scientific methods of traffic control and such-like could be brought into operation. The problem presents itself regarding the construction and ventilation. One would expect that an answer to this could and will be found.
This matter has been discussed with the Ministry of Transport by the planners who have chiefly attracted my interest. Correspondence has been taking place between the Ministry and Sir Ronald Russell, the Member for one of the Hendon constituencies. I must confess that I greatly deplore the reply that was sent to Sir Ronald Russell, because it would appear from the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary that the proposals have been rejected chiefly because sufficient detailed exploration has not taken place. I have here a copy of the letter, and it seems fairly obvious that the reply of the Minister has been simply that these matters are considered to be too expensive and impracticable at the present day. Your Lordships will know that this is a typical ministerial reply when a new type of venture is suggested. We have all experienced it from time to time. My twenty years' experience in another place makes me sceptical of this type of "brush-off": that this sort of scheme is too visionary, too revolutionary; that it is getting away from the traditional thing. I know that many Ministries do not care for the look of these things, and the main argument put forward in Stephen Swingler's reply to Sir Ronald Russell seemed to centre on this particular point.
The Ministry have also assumed that these underground motorways would be additional to the strategic radial surface

1241
motorways now being planned. This is an entirely false approach. These underground motorways are in substitution for the radial surface motorways, and not additional to them. If the motorway box has to be constructed it will take only a small percentage of London traffic. But the underground network could be connected with it, and would provide a much better method of avoiding the congestion that will inevitably continue to grow as more vehicles come on to our roads, particularly those seeking the radial access. Therefore the underground motorways would be the link-up with the motor box, as distinct from requiring the radial roads. These underground networks are fundamental and form the major part of a strategic road development plan. Their cost will not be additional to, but in substitution for, much that is being planned. Their construction would mean that many of the proposed surface level motorways would not be built, thus saving London, on its own evidence, from considerable disruption and dislocation and the chaos to which I have previously referred.
The Minister and her advisers, in considering this estimate of £1,776 million, say that it is far too low. That was their reply "off the cuff". But they have supplied no detail, no specialist examination; no results of discussions with technical people, or with the planners, the financiers, the surveyors and those people who are capable of getting down to the question of costs. They consider that the cost of such a scheme would work out much greater even than the figure I have mentioned. I must confess that I do not know the actual cost that would be involved, but what I am asking my noble friend to convey to the Government is that we must not just accept a ministerial consideration that it would be too costly.
After all, this scheme has been put forward by a group of people who are experts in every possible way and have every possible degree of skill. They have considerable experience of tunnel and underground work. The financiers have worked out costings. What I am asking is that my noble friend will take back to the Minister and to the Government the request that the Government should themselves set up a committee of experts, of all trades and vocations, such as would
1242
be necessary for this particular work. I do not envisage a body composed simply of civil servants. My idea is that we should seek to use the skills that we have available in this country and to give such a body of experts an opportunity to work out the scheme in much greater detail.
I am probably speaking far too long, my Lords, but there is much that can be said. I must confess that some of the replies of the Minister, such as the difficulty of cleaning, and similar operations, appear to indicate almost a scraping of the barrel in formulating objections to this revolutionary type of approach. I suggest that questions of cleaning, lighting, ventilation, maintenance operations and the like would be dealt with much more easily than the sort of problems which are involved in our surface motorways. I recognise that there are difficulties of construction, and the structural engineers who have been consulted admit that it would be no mean task. But there is considerable experience in the world in regard to underground work. We have had the Blackwall Tunnel, the Tyne Tunnel, and now the proposed Channel Tunnel. The construction of such tunnels was a formidable task, and at one time it was said that it was utterly impossible to do these things. But such projects are now an accomplished fact.
Many other nations are giving urgent consideration to putting tunnels underground in order to deal with traffic problems of the future. If we in this country do not find some new avenue of approach to meet the traffic requirements of our densely populated areas and conurbations, can we visualise what the future will be? I speak subject to correction, but I believe that there are some 14 million motor vehicles on the roads today. At the turn of the century we may expect some 33 million vehicles in our small, densely populated island, and if we follow the old surface tradition in regard to traffic one can visualise that strangulation must occur long before that.
I end with a plea to the Minister. I consider that there is tremendous potential in this scheme. I am not married to the scheme, but I am asking that the Minister should set up an independent body of experts—constructional engineers, ventilation engineers, planners,

1243
financiers—and request them to conduct a fully detailed survey embracing all the points in relation to future needs. If the noble Lord can give me an assurance upon this matter to-night, it will, I am confident, be in the best interests of the nation. We should await with extreme interest the report which these gentlemen would ultimately make, and I hope that such a report would be published as a public rather than a departmental document.
6.35 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, on his interesting speech about the study by Mr. Matthews on tunnel motorways in city centres. I would also thank him for putting down his Question, because as a result I read Mr. Matthews's Paper and found it very interesting. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, as I am sure would all noble Lords, that if it was possible to have a system of tunnel motorways the benefits would be very great indeed. I must say the noble Lord made the attractions very vivid to your Lordships.
I am bound to say that although I sympathise with him in the cool reception the noble Lord got from the Ministry of Transport, having served in that Ministry in the past, and therefore having some knowledge of the practical difficulties involved, I found Mr. Matthews not entirely convincing on his costing figures. He said in his paper that not many data were available on the costing of tunnel construction. I think that we must accept that this is a very attractive idea which simply has not been done in practice; that is to say, to build huge tunnels of this size involving a vast, complex system of the character which was envisaged in the Paper. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the cost might be. Mr. Matthews's figure of £1,700 million is, heaven knows! high enough. And let us get the thing in perspective. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of Transport allows the G.L.C. £30 million to spend on roads, so that £1,700 million is a rather long way out of sight of that. But it might be several times as much as that. I should expect the cost figures to be very formidable.
1244
On the engineering side, I also would expect that the problems of building these huge 60 ft. diameter tunnels at a great depth would be very formidable. Again, Mr. Matthews does no more than say that he thinks our own contractors would probably be able to do it. I myself would expect the difficulties and expense to be formidable. Furthermore, these tunnels would have to be immensely strong. The strain on a 60 ft. diameter tunnel would be immeasurably greater than that imposed on the relatively small tunnels which we use for Underground railways. I should have thought that very substantial engineering problems were involved in this matter. It would no doubt be necessary to build the greater part of the tunnel systems beneath the whole of the existing tunnel system—that is to say, beneath the Underground railways, even at their deepest level, as well as beneath gas and electricity supply installations, main sewers, and so on. So there are most formidable problems to overcome.
I should be most interested if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could tell us that he will set up a feasibility study to look into this matter. It would be fascinating to see the result. But I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, does not overlook the major problems which are involved. It would be interesting to hear from Lord Winterbottom, assuming such tunnels were ever built, what are the regulations about building tunnels under people's property. Is there some protection if a house with a 60 ft. diameter tunnel beneath it were suddenly to collapse?
May I offer a few thoughts about London traffic in my concluding remarks? I hope that some motorways will be built in London at some time, especially to and from the docks and in regard to essential traffic of that type, but the greater part of London traffic will have to continue to move on the existing street system. Indeed, we should wish it to do so, for we do not want the whole of London torn down. There is quite a good street system, although it is often heavily congested. During the last two or three years the progress in getting better movement in the existing street system has slowed up.
My right honourable friend Mr. Marples came in for a good deal of criticism when Minister of Transport, but

1245
his harshest critic would not deny that he really did something to improve the movement of traffic in Central London. He assembled a team of traffic engineers; he applied sound traffic engineering techniques to controlling the parked car, to one-way street systems, to prohibiting right turns, et cetera—all methods by which better movement can be got out of the existing street systems. The result of surveys has shown an improvement of something like 10 per cent. in the average speed of vehicles in the central area, and something of the same order—10 per cent. or 15 per cent.—less accidents. We have all benefited by it.
What is urgently needed is that the admirable start he made should be extended now throughout the major part of Greater London, so that similar techniques may be applied and we may make better use of the existing street system, so eliminating what is notoriously known as the "glue-pot ring" outside the central area, where traffic is simply brought to a halt by cars parked all over the place and, therefore, narrowed-down arteries of traffic. That brings congestions of every sort, buses are anything from half-an-hour to one hour late on schedule, and everybody suffers.
If the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could say a hopeful word here it would he well received by noble Lords in all parts of the House. I am delighted to hear that the newly-elected G.L.C. intend to appoint a Traffic Commissioner. This is a form of management commonly used in American cities; it has no essential virtue but it usually provides an additional impetus to get development of this kind going. There is, I know, already a first-rate officer in the G.L.C., in the person of Mr. Peter Stott, who has great knowledge of these matters. But the fact is that there has been no further development and it is very badly needed.
Without building any motorways, and for relatively small cost, we could see a vast improvement throughout London. We should have to accept more disciplines with it, but the movement of traffic would benefit us very substantially, and I hope the Government will give what encouragement and help they can to the attempt which I imagine the G.L.C. are now going to make to get this improvement. It would give tremendous benefit to every-
1246
body and at relatively little cost. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will say something encouraging about the prospect of building motorways in London, too; however, that is more in the long term. He would give us some pleasure if he could give us something on the short term.
6.44 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I think it is clear to everyone in this House that, as traffic builds up and the roadway system does not expand as fast as the traffic on it, we are facing a very difficult problem indeed. We all of us experience this problem daily, so I do not have to labour it. For this reason I think it highly desirable that the intelligence and imagination of as many people as possible is brought to bear on this problem. I should like to be able to say that this Government, or any other Government, has a solution to the problem. But obviously, we have not. All we can do is struggle with it as best we can. For this reason I think that Mr. Matthews' careful and imaginative study of an alternative to the motorway box is to be welcomed, and I am certain that this House welcomes Lord Popplewell's presentation of the subject to your Lordships. I think this is helpful.
If this matter is presented to your Lordships, it is also, of course, presented to the Department in whose responsibility the transport system of London lies. I think we shall all agree that this is a subject not for polemics but for rational study. We have two alternative ways of solving the same problem, and for this reason I rather regretted my noble friend's slightly acid references to the proposals for the motorway box itself and to the attitude of the Ministry of Transport to a letter on the subject. My noble friend reported that certain consultants had said that the approach to the G.L.C. to the motorway box was one of unhealthy and indecent haste. This is hardly, I would say, true. It rather suggests that the bulldozer is already pushing through the more salubrious suburbs. This is not so. The present state of play is that in 1965 a decision was reached by the G.L.C. to safeguard routes for the

1247
box but that, as the G.L.C and the Government have said on a number of occasions, neither body is committed to any undertaking that this network will be built or to any decision on the precise routes which might be followed. Thought is taking place and the holding operation obviously exists to make certain that if we decide on a motorway box it will run somewhere along the lines indicated in the plans. So I should be grateful if my noble friend—mentally at least—would withdraw the charges of unhealthy and indecent haste.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I do not think I used those words. This interpretation appears to me to indicate that my noble friend has a very guilty conscience in connection with the matter.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my conscience is hidden.
The other point made was that a Member in another place received a "brush-off". My noble friend implied that every time an imaginative idea came out to a Ministry the reaction of that Ministry was to say, "No". I have now had the pleasure of working in two Ministries and I think it true to say that in both of them any feasible idea receives consideration. It is much easier, of course, as my noble friend will agree, to dream up some ideal solution of a problem than to carry it into effect. That is the problem which unfortunate Ministries have to face.
It is also true to say that the gentlemen in the Ministry concerned who considered this matter were not only administrators; they were not only Firsts in Classics or Greats, but also included a large number of professional people, engineers, traffic experts and the rest. Knowing how these replies are drafted, I am sure this reply would have come through the professionals, having been considered by the administrators, and then sent forward to an honourable Member in another place. The proposal would not be turned down out of hand by administrators without professional qualifications.
Having said that, I would add that I do believe that this has been a useful debate; I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Department on whose behalf I am speaking to-day, and I will ask them to consider my noble friend's proposals that a study group should be
1248
set up to consider this idea. I cannot, of course, commit this Ministry, but I can at least ask them to consider my noble friend's proposals.
Similarly, I cannot, "off the cuff," reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who put a series of questions to me. He rather strengthened my own analysis that Mr. Matthews' costs are not only high but perhaps in the sub stratosphere. They are very great indeed. I was doing some very simple arithmetic and it seemed to me that if we take the estimated cost of a motorway box as £550 million, and add to that the cost of all the land that it is proposed to take, as the noble Lord suggested, at £100,000 an acre, the cost of the motorway box comes out at only just over £1,000 million, as opposed to £1,770 million proposed for the tunnel system. So, clearly, the costs of this scheme are very great indeed.
The tunnels proposed would be 60 feet in diameter. The Mersey Tunnel is 40 feet in diameter; and the Tube tunnel 12 feet in diameter. So the proposed tunnels would have a diameter five times that of the Tube tunnel, and about 50 per cent. larger than the Mersey Tunnel. So this is a technical problem which no one in the world has yet attempted to tackle. And while the problems of money are uncertain, the technical problems are equally uncertain. I can therefore understand only too well the inability of the Ministry of Transport to give a really optimistic answer to the honourable Member when he wrote to him.
Turning to the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I can only ask the Department concerned to try to answer them. Tunnelling under property must of course bring problems. It brings problems in the coalfields, and there is legislation covering compensation for damage caused by subsidence through mining in mining areas. I will find out whether there is similar protection available to a householder when a 60-feet tunnel goes under his house and something happens. At the same time, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that we should remember Mr. Marples with gratitude; he speeded up the traffic in Central London to a most surprising degree. In point of fact, I do not find driving through the centre of

1249
London, as compared with driving through the centres of Paris, Naples or even Rome, to be intolerable. I think the traffic goes reasonably fast and reasonably harmoniously. But there is no doubt that if the techniques being developed in the centre of London were extended outwards, this would be of value to us all.
I shall ask the Department concerned to inform the noble Lord if there are any hopes of motorways within the city itself. The M.1 is coming pleasantly close to the centre. I have now started to travel home on the extended M.1 rather than on the A.1, so motorways are penetrating into London. I will try to find out whether they are going to make their appearance anywhere else in this city.

SUMMER TIME
6.53 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet in a position to announce a decision on the adoption of Summer Time throughout the year. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and I very much hope that by the time I sit down your Lordships will not think that I have been too long about it. I apologise for the wording of the Question—one cannot, of course, have Summer Time all the year round—but it was a short way of describing the permanent advance of the clock by one hour on Greenwich Mean Time, and I hope that your Lordships, especially the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will forgive me. I put this down as an Unstarred Question because in addition to giving good reasons, as I think, for a permanent change, I thought it would be useful and relevant if I gave those of your Lordships who do not already know it some history of how Summer Time came to be instituted.
It was first thought of by Mr. William Willett, who was a builder in London and Brighton. He was a man of energy and ability who, with his father, was responsible for some of the best housing developments of his day, including the layout, design and construction of much of the Cadogan Estate round Sloane Square. The idea of Summer Time apparently came to him first on one of
1250
his early morning rides when he noticed how many of the blinds were still down in the houses which he passed. If, he said to himself, the occupants thought it was eight o'clock and not seven o'clock, they would be up and about and enjoying the early morning with him. But he knew them to be so obedient to the clock that the only way to get them up was not to exhort them to rise earlier but simply to alter the clock.
So full of enthusiasm did he become about the idea that he set about canvassing all the influential people he knew, and in 1908 a Bill called the Daylight Saving Bill was laid before the House of Commons and found its way to a Select Committee. It is interesting, I think, that although the idea was originally to get people up earlier in the morning, the sponsors and supporters of the Bill were concerned mainly with the extra hour of daylight to be gained at the end of the day. The Select Committee took evidence from more than forty witnesses, including industrialists, trade unionists, chambers of commerce, the Post Office, the railways, the Astronomer Royal of the Cape of Good Hope, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Sir Arthur, I am glad to inform your Lordships, was in favour of the Bill. So were the trade unions and the chambers of commerce. The railways did not mind, except those which had connections with France; and the Post Office were rather against it for the same reason, that it made things awkward with the French mail. The Horological Institute, even in those days, were in favour of a permanent change because it was bad for the clocks to keep adjusting them.
Schemes were considered for altering the clock on three successive Sundays at twenty-minute intervals or on two Sundays at thirty-minute intervals; and there was evidence about all sorts of times, such as mean time, sidereal time, apparent solar time, navigation and so on. To any of your Lordships interested in the subject, I greatly recommend a look at that Committee's proceedings. I found much to instruct and amuse, including the fact that the chairman was at one time under the impression that altering the clock by one hour might deprive us altogether of one hour of daylight. Eventually, they reported to the House in favour of a change of one hour between April and

1251
September, giving five cogent reasons, as they thought; but the Bill was slung out.
It was promoted again in 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914. No one can say that Mr. Willett and the promoters did not try, but they were always vehemently opposed. The Bill was called foolish, vexatious, uncalled for and a stupid joke, and there was talk about the disruption of national life. One Member said that it was
"being smuggled through Parliament by a rich and influential faction with a hobby, and the vast majority of people will turn to that other place and say, 'Thank God there is a House of Lords, who will again rescue us from the foolish legislation of the House of Commons'".
Another said:
"Never in my wildest dreams when I came into this House did I imagine that its time would be wasted considering a Bill of this description."
However, while our Parliament were arguing about it Mr. Willett had the satisfaction of seeing his idea adopted by France, Germany, Holland and Austria-Hungary. He died in 1915, a year before the Government, when the late Lord Samuel was Home Secretary, put it through Parliament as a war measure for the saving of fuel; and I am glad to say that there were no objections from your Lordships. It was not promoted as the Daylight Saving Bill but as the Summer Time Bill, and the name has remained. As your Lordships will know, a further measure was introduced in the last war, for the same reasons as in the first, and we had the clock advanced by one hour on Greenwich Mean Time through the winter and Double Summer Time through the summer.
My Lords, the usual arguments against a permanent advance of the clock—and some of them were given by Sir Alan Herbert in an article in The Times of May 6—are that G.M.T. is a sacrosanct relic of our imperial past; that the genuine twelve o'clock midday, about which there is some magic, should not be tampered with; and that if people want an earlier morning or more daylight in the evening they should get up earlier. However, noon Greenwich Mean Time is not necessarily the time that the sun is at its highest over Greenwich. Because of the way the earth wobbles about, noon by the sundial may come as
1252
much as a quarter of an hour either side of noon G.M.T. If you add that to the fact that, by the way the sun flies, London is twenty minutes from Penzance, real noon at Penzance may come, as I understand it, thirty-five minutes after mean time noon over Greenwich. So we time ourselves by a compromise time measured from an observatory whose location was, anyway, accidental; and we accept this arbitrariness and inaccuracy for the sake of a uniform time throughout the country for the convenience of starting factories, catching trains, measuring working hours and a host of other things. It used not to be so. Different cities kept different times—and very awkward it was.
My Lords, it should be obvious—I am sure it is to your Lordships—that timekeeping is useful only so long as everybody knows what time it is and can keep in step. It is, I think your Lordships will agree, a very useful invention. It is now a convention which we have all grown accustomed to observe. As Sir Herbert Samuel said when he moved the Summer Time Bill, by altering the clock you are not changing what you are actually doing but the name of the hour at which you are doing it. Nobody, so far as I know, suggests doing away with G.M.T.; the real suggestion is that we regulate our lives differently in relation to G.M.T.
This brings me almost to my last point. It has been said that it is our national morning lethargy which makes people want the change; but I do not think that that is so. Our office hours, I believe, have not changed much this last fifty years; although factory workers, I am glad to say, work fewer hours than they used to. It is simply that the time for getting up and starting work came to be fixed at a time at which it is light all the year round, and this is possibly—although I do not know this—a left-over from our mainly agricultural past. On the darkest morning in London, which is around December 30—not the winter solstice, but at December 30—it starts to get light at round about 7.30 a.m. to 7.45 a.m. or at about 8.30 a.m. in Glasgow.
Advancing the clock one hour through the winter would mean that, taking the darkest mornings, which are about a fortnight either side of December 30, it would not get light on a dull morning

1253
until about 8.30 o'clock in London and about 9.15 o'clock in Glasgow. But it would be for only a month that we should have to bear that rather dismal state of affairs. For October, November, February and March, I think, the great majority of the working population would not notice much difference in the mornings than hitherto, and all the time they would have the tremendous gain of that extra hour of light in the evenings. To put that one hour of daylight where, for most of the year, it would be of most use, I think would be worth that inconvenient month when one would have to get up and leave home in the dark.
I understand that there would be a useful saving in light and fuel costs, and it has been suggested that the change would reduce accidents and crime—although we should have to see whether it would. It would abolish that tiresome and irritating twice-yearly clock change to which so many people find it difficult to adjust themselves. It is a lot easier to adjust clocks than people. Finally, my Lords, there is the matter of "going Continental" and keeping up with the French. I am not sure myself how important this is; although one of the original objections to Summer Time was that it would upset trade with the Continent. But as we are trying to join the Common Market, keeping our clocks to mid-European time—and they themselves have no intention of changing their clocks to suit us—would be a friendly gesture as well as a practical one. Business friends tell me that it is tedious doing business with France in the winter. Postal services and train connections would be simpler to co-ordinate.
In the end, however desirable it may be that our clocks should co-ordinate with the Continent, it is the effect on our national life which I think should be considered first. If the change made life more difficult or the hours of daylight ridiculous in relation to our hours of work, then the move ought not to be made. As it is, I think the effect will be quite the contrary and, far from making life more difficult, would make it more pleasant. Therefore it is to be thoroughly recommended. I hope that the Government will have some encouraging news about it this evening. Public opinion in
1254
the last few years has moved a long way in favour of this change.
7.5 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, it is basically Lord Raglan's last point which has led me to speak this evening in support of his Question. It is the question of going into Europe. The change which has been suggested may be a small and an insignificant one; but it does eliminate one more seemingly totally unnecessary difference between us and what we on these Benches hope (and, I believe, what generally everybody in the House now hopes) will be our future relationship with Europe. We are getting decimal currency and doing away, I hope, with our avoirdupois and, possibly, even our driving on the left. These are all steps towards getting into the Common Market, and I am sure they will be received in the right spirit in Europe.
There has been a substantial swing in public opinion on this point since 1960, as there has been a swing in public opinion about going into Europe altogether. I feel that public opinion is now ready for this measure. There have been many social changes in this country, all of them I think desirable, and in the working habits of our countrymen. There is more leisure these days than there used to be and people tend to rise later and go to bed later than they used to do. The possible exception to this state of affairs is, of course, those who do shift work; but since shift work virtually kills the clock altogether I do not think there is any argument to be brought on that score.
I come now to the great importance of telephone communications between this country and Europe. It is wonderful that now on the new S.T.D. system we can dial Germany and France and various other places. This is to be applauded. However, there is still the most disastrous system of telephone communications between this country and Southern Europe. I am speaking in particular of Spain. I do quite a lot of business with Spain. It is not unusual for me to get into my office at 10 o'clock and try to place a telephone call to Madrid; and by the time I get through to Madrid they have gone to lunch—where they stay, as your Lordships know, for some four hours. I place the call again; but by the time it

1255
comes through they have gone home. I can assure your Lordships that this has happened to me on occasions, as I am sure it has happened to many other people in this country when they have been trying to do business with Southern Europe. This has nothing to do with the question; but a serious look ought to be taken at our telephone communications with Southern Europe which surely could be improved.
I will not linger on the obvious complexities (on which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, touched) of the bi-annual change, the change in routine for the farmers and, indeed, for all of us which really seems to be totally unnecessary and a very great nuisance. It is not necessary—because it is not sufficiently important—to do more than touch on the question of the production of diaries, which has been dealt with so often when this subject has been raised before both in this House and in the other place. It is obviously extremely difficult to produce diaries on a year-to-year basis when nobody knows when Summer Time will come in and when it will go out.
I should like briefly to talk about the time when I was in Saudi Arabia, because I think this point has a bearing on the question of differences in time generally. In Jeddah there are four major, different times running simultaneously in the same city. There is what is known as "Palace time", the time by which the palace and the staff of the monarch operate; there is a different time (some two hours different from the Palace time) known as "British Embassy time", which is in some rather obscure way connected with Greenwich Mean Time, although I am not entirely sure how; there is religious time, at which all the Mohammedan mullahs operate and read their prayers, and there is Army time, which the military observe. There is a maximum of five hours difference between these four times at any one moment. For example, it may be one o'clock in the afternoon Palace time and six o'clock at night religious time, and the people in Saudi Arabia really do not know whether they are coming or going—I mean, of course, so far as time is concerned.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, obviously this was before the war.
LORD MOYNIHAN: Nowadays, at least until the war, a fifth time was observed in Saudi Arabia—Pan-American Airways time, which seems to be a compromise, at least by all English-speaking people staying in the country.
Your Lordships may think this a flippant diversion from the point, but it illustrates, surely, the importance of everybody in the same country or in the same area working on the same time. I know that no Member of your Lordships' House would say that we are in the same country as Continental Europe, yet; but we are in the same area, in the same group, and we do a great deal of business with Europe every day. We are not in a different longitude. The difference in time from one longtitude to another obviously must be observed, but we are on the same longitude as Europe and it is only a left-over, possibly, as was suggested by the noble Lord, from our colonial past that keeps us on Greenwich Mean Time when the rest of Europe is not.
I would conclude by saying that we have all—at least, I speak for myself—been very sad to see a 10 per cent. increase in the electricity bills recently, and there is no doubt that this proposal would save perhaps 5 per cent. of the electricity consumed by ordinary families. We on these Benches are always happy to support anything which would bring us more into line with Continental Europe, and I feel that, however insignificant this step may be, even so it is one step, even if a short one, in the right direction.
7.14 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I agree with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has made about the benefit with regard to our relationships with Europe if we could have the same uniform time system as they have in Europe; and of course it is true to say that time is our own invention. It is there to serve us as human beings, and it is up to us to adjust the system in the way that will suit us best. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for introducing the subject in such an interesting way and for giving us the history, with which I am bound to say I was not familiar, though I can vaguely remember the original Daylight Saving Bill being introduced in 1915 or 1916. My old friend Sir Alan Herbert

1257
indoctrinates me regularly on this subject and tells me how monstrous it is that any change should be even contemplated. When I am with him I find him very convincing, but I cannot afterwards remember his arguments—which may be as well because they might keep us here for a long time.
My Lords, there are two points on which I should like some information. I do not know what are the intentions of the Government, but there are two traditional objections to a change to which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will address himself in any comments he may make on the subject. The first is the problem of electricity generation. In the past the electricity boards have produced a substantial objection against a longer lighting period in the mornings which would exacerbate the problem of the morning peak load and cause intolerable difficulties in a cold snap in the middle of winter. Has the capacity of our generating stations, and indeed the distribution system, so improved that this objection may now be overcome? The second and I suppose the most substantial objection to making a change has been the objection by the farmers. The arguments which have been put in such an interesting manner and so convincingly to us have been the arguments of townsmen. The farmers do not like to have the day start an hour later, or, let us say, an hour earlier, so far as darkness is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said that in the middle of December it is usually getting light in London by 7.30, but it is much nearer 8 o'clock, and on an overcast morning it would be pretty well 8 o'clock before you began to get much light. On the farm the work has to be done outside, and it is about then that men can start working.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords may I correct the noble Lord? I am not a townsman, I am a farmer, and my men would far prefer to have the change.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has extensive estates in South Wales, and I am aware of the strong farming interest he has always had; but the arguments he put were townsmen's arguments. In the town it makes very little difference whether you start an hour later—that is
1258
to say, if we were to have Summer Time right through the year—because modern lighting systems are so good. The streets are all illuminated; public transport is lighted, and the change would make little difference. But it would still make a difference in the country. It is true that on the farms most stock-keeping is now intensive; it is carried on in buildings which are lit by electricity, so that a number of farmworkers can start work straight away at 7 o'clock—or indeed at 6 o'clock if they wish. But there are still a certain number of men who have to work outside, especially on the smaller farms. There is no doubt that they would be seriously inconvenienced by an extra hour of darkness in the morning.
The problem does not stop with the farmers and the farmworkers: there is the question of children going to school. If we have Summer Time all through the year it will mean that in the winter it will not be light until about a quarter to nine in the morning, so the children will have to start off for school in darkness. There are no street lights in the villages, and the children will not like that; which will mean that their "mums" will have to take them; and they will not like that either. These are quite serious practical problems in the villages. The extension of Summer Time may be a case of pro bono publico and something that we ought to do. Certainly the arguments about Europe appeal to me very strongly, and I think they matter very much indeed. I hope to see us going into Europe, and I feel that we should clear away these technical problems as fast as we can. Nevertheless, we should make the point that a change would cause inconvenience in the villages and on the farms. These are the traditional arguments which in the past have always been regarded as so substantial that the change has not been made. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will at least acknowledge that there is still great force in the arguments which have to be weighed against the very strong arguments for making a change.
7.20 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I expect your Lordships will share my joy in the fact that we have emerged from the darkness of the debate on tunnels

1259
to the light which has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Raglan, and also my pleasure in my noble friend's exposition of his case and the fact that, although his experience is all agricultural, he could be accused of presenting a case for the townsman.
I regret that the Government are not yet in a position to make an announcement, although we hope shortly to do so in the light of inquiries that we are making and which have just been completed. My noble friend Lord Raglan gave us an interesting account of the long history of the struggle of William Willett, and of the regrettable fact that he did not live to see his life's ambition achieved in this country, though it did come in other countries of Europe.
I will not pursue the history of it, but will begin by saying that the present position is governed by the Summer Time Order, 1964, which fixed the period for the three years up to 1967 and provided for an extension of four weeks in the spring and three weeks in the autumn, so that this year the period runs from March 19 to October 29—that is, nearly two-thirds of the entire year. This Order was made in the light of extensive inquiries made in 1960 by the then Government. The inquiries showed that of the organisations consulted, there was an almost even division between those who wanted permanent Summer Time and those who did not. The latter included a number of special interests—those of agriculture, electricity, coal and the schools, to three of which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has referred.
I should think that I was one of the youngest and earliest adherents of Mr. Willett's cause. As a small boy, I spent many months on a farm. There my hero was the cowman. We did not have Summer Time then, and whatever the time of the year, the cowman rose at five o'clock by the light of a small piece of candle. I also used to rise with him, and he would send me to fetch up the cows—a very interesting task in winter. I went out with a little piece of candle in a lantern down to the field, and I only knew that the cows were coming up by the sound of the squelching of their hocks coming out of the mud and by the warmth of their bodies in the cold of
1260
the morning. I conducted them to the cow shed, where in due course they were milked. Of course, for months in the year they were milked before it began to be light. It struck me then, even as a small boy, that this was extraordinary. The farmer did not sell the milk, but made it into butter, and it did not matter at all what time the cows were milked.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, put forward the case for agriculture. I member these objections when Summer Time was started. We had real time and Summer Time in the country, and the farmers went by their own time. But we do not hear about that now, though there remains a real objection. The noble Lord also spoke about electricity. The electricity generating industry hope to have sufficient power to meet an enhanced morning peak by the winter of next year, 1968. With regard to the schools, it is true that in some areas there has been a real difficulty, but it is one which will not be insurmountable. We had Double Summer Time in 1947 and had to adjust times to meet the situation, and no doubt adjustments can be made.
In general, it seems that not all the difficulties foreseen by these interests in 1960 have necessarily persisted. The 1964 Order, which extends Summer Time to virtually the whole of the spring and the autumn, was therefore regarded partly as a holding operation and partly as an experiment, since it gave an opportunity to judge public reaction to a more than ordinary extension of this kind. There is little doubt that the extension itself has been well received. There has been no suggestion from any quarter that it is not. Very few people would now wish us to revert to the limited statutory period of Summer Time laid down in the Acts of 1922 and 1925. But the question remains whether we ought now to go further, or indeed the whole way, by adopting Summer Time throughout the year, so as to conform with the time observed by our Continental neighbours, with whom our contacts both commercially and socially are all the time becoming closer.
My noble friend Lord Raglan, in reference to the Common Market, said that this would be a friendly and practical suggestion. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that it would eliminate

1261
one more seemingly totally unnecessary difference. He ventured other suggestions, though I felt that when he got as far as Saudi Arabia that was a little off the Question we are considering, though his remarks were very interesting. Nobody would pretend that this is an easy question. The position of this country on the North-Western seaboard of Europe means that winter days tend to be shorter here than in most Continental countries, and that even where they are not dawn comes later. In a recent article in the Financial Times, it was pointed out that with an all-the-year-round Summer Time, on New Year's day Glasgow would see daylight two hours later than Rome.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think that it would matter on New Year's day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount is far too quick on the uptake. He has spoiled my point. I was going to say that nobody ever sees the dawn in Glasgow on New Year's day. Seriously, for geographical reasons alone, the circumstances in London and the South-East are not identical with those of other areas further to the North or West. Again, the needs of the urban and rural communities are not necessarily the same—yet most of us now are town dwellers, and the time system we live under was fixed when Britain was still largely a rural community. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is an important matter, which affects every individual in some degree, at work, in the home, or at leisure, and individual circumstances and preferences are bound to differ very widely. It is certain that whatever decision the Government reach, it will he unpopular in many quarters. The matter has to be examined both from the economic and from the social standpoints in an endeavour to see what course is in the best interests, and likely to prove most acceptable, to the country as a whole.
This is what we have been trying to do. We have not attempted in our recent inquiries to cover all the ground pre-
1262
viously traversed in 1960, but to bring the findings up-to-date, to assess the effects of new developments since then, and to see how far representative opinion—in both the social and economic fields—may have shifted in one direction or another. And having done this, the decision has now to be taken. I think I may promise your Lordships that you will not be kept long in suspense. But having explained the background of our inquiries, and their nature, it would he premature for me to enter into any further details at this time. One assurance that I can give your Lordships is that if the decision were to introduce permanent Summer Time this would require legislation. It could not, therefore, be done precipitately, and there would be the fullest opportunity for the issue to be debated in both Houses. In the meanwhile, I can only ask your Lordships to remain patient for just a little longer.

RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Chairman of Committees for the time being, the Lord Merthyr, the Earl of Listowel, the Lord Rea, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Amulree, the Earl St. Aldwyn, the Lord Crook, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Archibald, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Viscount Goschen, the Lord Grenfell, the Lord Shepherd, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Viscount Dilhorne, the Lord Champion, the Lord Oakshott and the Lord St. Helens, Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: The said Commission was read.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.